UPDATE: So THAT’S What Really Is Going On. Boy, Wouldn’t It Be Great If There Was Some Trustworthy Professional Source That Would Report Events Without Spin And Intentional Distortions?

 

Somehow, I expect the New York Times to be better than this.

Today’s Morning Warm-Up included this item as its final note:

Ethics Alarms will certainly feature more on this development, but for now I’ll just welcome the decision, sure to be attacked as “white supremacy,”  by the Justice Department’s civil rights division to begin  investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants. Affirmative action has always been a euphemism for “race-based discrimination in favor of the right race,” and while it can be argued that it was a necessary evil in the wake of Jim Crow, it is still a hypocritical and unconstitutional policy.  I hope the Justice Department includes discrimination against Asian-American students in its crackdown as well.

Well what do you know?

DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores  put out a statement today clarifying what the New York Times went out of its way to distort, saying,

“Press reports regarding the personnel posting in the Civil Rights Division have been inaccurate. The posting sought volunteers to investigate one administrative complaint filed by a coalition of 64 Asian-American associations in May 2015 that the prior Administration left unresolved. The complaint alleges racial discrimination against Asian Americans in a university’s admissions policy and practices.”

This was the 2015 complaint by Asian-Americans claiming they were victimized by quotas at Ivy League schools that was discussed in the Ethics Alarms post I linked to this morning.

Flores continued,

“This Department of Justice has not received or issued any directive, memorandum, initiative, or policy related to university admissions in general. The Department of Justice is committed to protecting all Americans from all forms of illegal race-based discrimination.”

So contrary to the Times misleading spin, it was not a Justice Department effort to crack down on college discrimination against whites only. The actual initiative involved anti-Asian-American discrimination, which the Obama administration showed little interest in addressing. The Times fake news worked, though: it drew more hate toward the Trump administration…as I predicted. Of course, any non-idiot who has been awake since November could have predicted that.

The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article claiming, “What do blacks have to lose under Trump? College, apparently.” Congressional Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond put out a statement saying,

“Instead of standing up for himself to a president who called him ‘very weak’ and ‘beleaguered,’ Attorney General Sessions has chosen to pick on minority students who are in pursuit of a college education, opportunity and the American Dream.”

“The resistance” is getting transparent and sloppy. Make that more transparent and sloppy.

________________________

Pointer and Source: Daily Caller

37 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Education, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Race, Rights

37 responses to “UPDATE: So THAT’S What Really Is Going On. Boy, Wouldn’t It Be Great If There Was Some Trustworthy Professional Source That Would Report Events Without Spin And Intentional Distortions?

  1. First the Debbie Wasserman-Schults/ Imran Awan-n-Bros. IT deal and now this?

    And from the Daily Effin’ Caller, no less??

    All efforts to marginalize this >b>EVIL mouthpiece of the Alt-Right have been unsuccessful, ergo, they must be destroyed!!

    HRC’s response to Julian Assange was “Can’t we just drone this guy?”

    That on the table?

  2. dragin_dragon

    Just an FYI, does ANYBODY expect this to be reported in the MSM? No? I didn’t think so.

  3. I’m beginning to think the best thing Trump and the Republicans in congress could do is continue the notion Scott Adams brought up, simply demolish Obama Care, Affirmative Action, the entire Education Cabinet position, etc. It would be easier to either decline to build or build new stuff if the wreckage of the old stuff were gone. How could it be worse than what’s going on now?

    • wyogranny wrote, “How could it be worse than what’s going on now?”

      Seriously? There are lots and lots of ways it could be worse than it is now; remember that genius has limits, stupidity has none.

  4. Wayne

    I think the Republic is going down the drain with a giant sucking sound. These resistance weenies have revealed what clowns they are with their successful disruption of a panel on free speech wearing Nazi uniforms supposedly to mock Ann Coulter.

  5. Hey Chris: the NYT lied again in a story…

    • slickwilly wrote, “Hey Chris: the NYT lied again in a story…”

      The question must be asked; what exactly was the lie?

      • “So contrary to the Times misleading spin, it was not a Justice Department effort to crack down on college discrimination against whites only. “

        • slickwilly,
          When did misleading spin become the equivalent to an actual lie?

          • A lie is:
            “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”

            “something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture”

            “an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood”

            “to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive”

            The NYT damn well knew that this was about Asian Americans, and spoke falsely with intent to deceive in pursuit of an agenda.

        • Chris

          Well, the article never said “whites only,” and in fact acknowledged a few paragraphs down that the document they were basing their report on did not specify exactly what groups the Justice Department sees as at risk of discrimination. But the lede specifies “white” anyway.

          If the DOJ spokeswoman is telling the truth, I don’t know if we could call the NYT’s report a “lie” under the strict standards that this blog has applied to that term. But in that case, it was certainly misleading and based on partial information, and the NYT should not have even run the story with the partial information they had at the time. The assumption in the lede is also clearly unfair given that the NYT admits they don’t have a firm basis for that assumption only a few paragraphs later.

          • The intent to deceive by using the lede is clear: they wanted the outrage the headline caused, and did not care about the truth they did not know

            • Chris

              The NYT damn well knew that this was about Asian Americans, and spoke falsely with intent to deceive in pursuit of an agenda.

              I highly doubt they knew that. Had they known that, they would have also expected that the DOJ would correct them the very next day. Why would they intentionally give the White House another opportunity to call them “fake news?” No, it is far more likely that they jumped the gun on a story they didn’t fully understand. Never attribute to malice what can be more likely attributed to incompetence.

              • I retracted that part while clarifying my position.

                As to Hanlon’s Razor:

                The NYT has demonstrated their malice regarding the Trump Administration, and have not a care what the White House says about them. They ARE fake news and couldn’t care less.

                • Chris

                  Ah, I missed your clarification. Thanks.

                  I agree that their bias against Trump motivated them to jump the gun on this issue, and that led to inaccurate reporting.

                  I still think dismissing the paper as a whole as “fake news” is irresponsible. I would say the vast majority of their reporting is still accurate, even if they are one-sided and their bias is causing them to err far more frequently than they used to.

                  • I still think dismissing the paper as a whole as “fake news” is irresponsible. I would say the vast majority of their reporting is still accurate, even if they are one-sided and their bias is causing them to err far more frequently than they used to.

                    I can respect that viewpoint, Chris. You believe you can divine the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. After all, you have not been exposed to the left coast reporting bias as long as conservatives. The main stream news has been biased against our views my entire life, and I have had to research claims since I started paying attention in high school. You have only had the bias rubbed in your face enough to call it out the past year, I suspect. This is not an indictment of you personally, Chris. if I was in your shoes, I would feel the same way.

                    I long ago decided to not waste my limited time deciding if the NYT is lying this time, or is simply reporting responsibly, especially since they espoused the ends justify the means against Trump. Any source that consistently lies and spins is untrustworthy, and we have other sources to use.

                  • I obviously don’t dismiss the paper as a whole as fake news, since it’s the newspaper I subscribe to. But as with Snopes, once a source has shown itself to be untrustworthy, you are a fool to trust it. There is no way to know whether the Times is spinning, hiding or slanting…and it is the BEST of the mainstream news media.

              • The most charitable interpretation is that confirmation bias led the Times to leap to a conclusion that supported a pre-existing “resistance” narrative.
                Journalists aren’t supposed to do that, and editors exist to flag it when they do.

      • It is certainly deceit in the headline, which suggests only white discrimination was the target. Deceit is lying.

  6. In other news today…

    Leaking to the press private conversations between the President of the United States and foreign leaders a very serious national security problem.

    • Chris

      I would say that used to be true, Zoltar, since the default expectation was that the president knows what he’s doing when it comes to national security, keeps secrets when necessary and reveals them only when appropriate. However, we know that those expectations have already been violated by this president numerous times; he has leaked national security matters himself to foreign leaders, as well as to all of Twitter.

      This morning, he once again sided with Russia over our own government:

      This follows Trump’s pattern of siding against the intelligence community to promote Russia’s interests in casting doubt on their interference in our election, and encouraging Russia to leak Hillary’s e-mails during the campaign.

      So it appears Trump himself may be a national security problem.

      I ask again to those of you who think the Russia collusion narrative is a bonkers conspiracy theory: if Trump were beholden to Russia, either because they worked with him in helping him win the election or because they have some kind of kompromat on him, how would his behavior be any different than it is now?

      • Dwayne N. Zechman

        Point of order:

        POTUS is the ultimate authority on what is and is not classified information, and holds the ultimate decision-making authority to declassify something.

        The President cannot “leak” anything. Ever.

        It’s a technical point, and POTUS can certainly do harm by declassifying things he ought not.

        Think of it like HIPAA: I can never ever be in violation of it by revealing MY OWN medical information, no matter whom I reveal it to.

        –Dwayne

        • Yes, but what other Presidents can do, this one can’t, because he’s not normal.

          Jeez, catch up!

          • Chris

            Dwayne:

            POTUS is the ultimate authority on what is and is not classified information, and holds the ultimate decision-making authority to declassify something.

            Yes, that’s the problem.

            I was wrong to use the term “leaking” to describe the president’s irresponsible habit of revealing national security secrets to foreign leaders and Twitter. But the fact that these were not technically “leaks” doesn’t mitigate the danger I was referring to. The current president simply cannot be trusted with classified information.

            Jack:

            Yes, but what other Presidents can do, this one can’t, because he’s not normal.

            Who said the president “can’t” reveal classified information to anybody? He shouldn’t, unless absolutely prudent, and there’s no argument that it was in the two cases I’m referring to. As for “not normal,” well, yeah, it isn’t normal that we have a president who casually reveals classified information for the sole purpose of impressing people. That’s why he can’t be trusted with classified information. He can still access it and give it to whomever he pleases, though, and nobody’s stopping him. Yet.

            • My statement accurately describes the current double standard adopted by “the resistance.”

              • Chris

                It’s a double standard to believe incompetent, untrustworthy and irresponsible leaders should not be trusted with the same amount of power that less obviously incompetent, untrustworthy and irresponsible leaders have been trusted with?

                • POTUS is POTUS, and there is NO higher Executive authority. If Obama had this ability, then Trump does, and arguing otherwise is a double standard

                  • Chris

                    But again, I’m not arguing over whether or not he has the ability.

                    • Then believe what you want. Wishing Trump weren’t Trump is harmless, until you advocate treating him differently than every POTUS in history.

                      The Resistance IS advocating this very thing, and that is unethical and a double standard.

            • As a former TS/SCI holder, I approve of this post by Chris.

              Trump is all of the things Chris says. He just does not violate the law like, say, Hillary did.

      • I wrote, “Leaking to the press private conversations between the President of the United States and foreign leaders a very serious national security problem.”

        Chris wrote, “I would say that used to be true, Zoltar”

        “Used to be true” meaning it’s not true anymore? What the hell are you talking about?

        I call BULL SHIT on this idiotic assertion by Chris. None of Chris’ rationalizations or double standards trying to justify leaking private phone conversations between the President of the United States and other foreign leaders make this any less of a national security issue. It is just as much of a national security issue as it ever has been or ever will be.

        Chris’ claim is blind ignorance based on double standards and biased partisanship. Again Chris; your bias has made you stupid.

        • “I would say that used to be true, Zoltar”

          Another res ipsa loquitur admission that what is unacceptable and unethical conduct toward any other President is acceptable toward this one, because Trump, the ends justify the means, by any means necessary, and “the hell with national interest, the only thing that matters is to overturn the election.”

          Pretty damning. I was going to write a post about it, but I am so sick of this attitude, I can’t do it. Maybe tomorrow.

  7. Pennagain

    On “affirmative action”: A black woman I know, magna cum laude Stanford University, and 3rd in her class at Johns Hopkins Med School, both on full scholarship, when told how respected and revered she is, tells this story to anyone who brings up the subject. It remains as bitter as when I first heard it (the first sentence and last sentences are verbatim, the rest as well as I can remember):

    “Affirmative action” is the worst thing that ever happened to Black folks, mister [or sister]. How would you like it if you stepped off that stage with your degree and heard one of your professors say to another, There goes another one who stole that degree away from some deserving white kid? What about offering one of your best students a glowing reference to Stanford and having her hem and haw and finally admit that she had asked three others, two of them women, to do it because she knew I was smarter than the rest of them but, you know, they know you’re Black and maybe they’ll think you got in on AA? There’s no way I can get out from under that. You can see when it crosses their minds … and it always does, at some point, when people talk about their college days. People, black or white, think low on black; it’s automatic. They didn’t do that with my granddad. When he graduated high school head of his class, everyone expected him to do well. And he did. Not everybody liked him; not everybody admired him. But nobody thought he hadn’t earned what he’d worked for.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s