Unethical Quote Of The Month, And A Bonus Kaboom: The New York Times Editors

“But if your man is really innocent, what’s the worry?”

The New York Times in an editorial, “Fox News v. Robert Mueller”

Yes, the New York Times really printed that, under its banner.



There goes my head.

As much as I have learned to distrust the objectivity and motives of the New York Times, I did not expect the traditionally liberal paper to make a sinister argument typically associated with totalitarian regimes. This is nothing but a  rephrasing of the traditional “nothing to hide” rationalization for obtrusive state surveillance, as well as illegal police searches and abusive prosecutorial methods.

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” is such a cliché of oppressive state action that it has its own Wikipedia entry. It is often attributed to Joseph Goebbels or “1984,” though there is no documentation for either. It was uttered by villain Pius Thicknesse in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”:

“As your new Minister for Magic, I promise to restore this temple of tolerance to its former glory. Therefore, beginning today, each employee will submit themselves… for evaluation. But know this: you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.”

In the film version of the novel, the actor (Guy Henry) playing Pius was cast to evoke Goebbels. (above).

Progressive writer Upton Sinclair used an inverted version in 1918 in “The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation” (1918):

“Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends—people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.'”

The statement adopted by the Times editors as well as the attitude behind constitute a rejection of democratic values and an endorsement of state sponsored fear and subjugation of individual rights. “It you are innocent, why worry?” literally stands for the proposition that one is guilty until proven innocent, which is an accurate description of the position of the Times, the mainstream media and “the resistance” regarding the baseless allegation of  “collusion” with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. In the context of the editorial, which dismisses legitimate questions about the objectivity and conflicts of interest among Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, the argument is especially disingenuous. If one is innocent, one shouldn’t worry if a biased team of lawyers is trying to find a way to make you look guilty?

It is also head-exploding that the New York Times editors didn’t hear ringing ethics alarms as soon as that despicable thought began forming in their heads. It has been the motto of evil doers and the rationalization of smirking power abusers for centuries, back to the Spanish Inquisition and before. Are they really this corrupted? This blinded by hate?

I regret that I have yet to complete my planned post here about the astoundingly sloppy manner in which Mueller has assembled and monitored his team and the degree to which its conclusions are now sure to be tainted by justified public suspicion that the investigation was neither fair nor unbiased. The unpleasant fact that the Get Trump mob has to accept is that there have already been sufficiently serious conflicts and indications of bias to free a murderer who was convicted by evidence gathered by a similarly tainted investigation. Fox has been hyping the recent developments involving misconduct on Mueller’s team, but the Times claim that there is no problem at all is rank dishonesty. Then, incredibly,  the Times editors, while not quoting Goebbels, certainly channel him in their final line.

By the way,  the President of the United Sates isn’t Fox’s “guy,” he’s the Times’ guy too, or should be if the Times editors had any respect for our elections and institutions.

23 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month, And A Bonus Kaboom: The New York Times Editors

  1. You wonder why people would vote for Roy Moore?

    That comment from the editorial is one reason why. The mindset of the progressives is clear.

  2. which is an accurate description of the position of the Times, the mainstream media and “the resistance” regarding the baseless allegation of “collusion” with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.

    They are just projecting.

  3. Part of me thinks it would be funny if Trump started tweeting that the DOJ is going to start investigating the NTY and conclude the same line while giving the NYT proper citation. The other part knows that would be really scary and just plain wrong.

    • That has sort of an ‘so let me be evil’ feel to it…

      Progressives have become what they have always warned conservatives would be, given power: Totalitarian theocrats (from the Church of Climate Change, Brotherhood of Politically Correct Thought)

      • Came across this yesterday: https://wearyourvoicemag.com/more/entertainment/gal-gadot-rape-culture

        Apparently there are accusations that Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot blamed a female friend 13 years ago for her own rape. Writer Donyae Coles said:

        “If these events did not happen then it is very easy for Gadot or a member of her team to come forward and discredit them by providing history for her whereabouts or an account of what actually took place during that time. Instead there is radio silence, as if these allegations do not matter.”

        I read this in utter surprise that some of these intersectionalists are suggesting someone give proof that they didn’t say something according to some rumor from over a decade ago. The article ends “Gadot shouldn’t be able to ignore this and we shouldn’t allow her to.” Gadot’s apparent support of IDF is what tipped this articles author towards wanting this actress to prove herself.

        This kind of Stasi style progressivism will end badly.

  4. “But if your man is really innocent, what’s the worry?”

    This same crap was happening in Wisconsin with the political left was endlessly attacking Governor Walker after Act 10 was signed. The leftist media, and the predominate outspoken portion of the political left in general, really doesn’t give a damn about right or wrong, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, they only want to win; that’s it there’s nothing more, and to accomplish that the ends justifies the means.

    Now that the New York Times has put “But if your man is really innocent, what’s the worry?” in it’s news paper, the equivalent is likely to go viral in social media. It’ll be a new battle cry from the left.

    I personally believe without a shred of doubt in my mind that executives, editors and a fair amount of the staff in the most popular main street media outlets (other than Fox News) are directly colluding with prominent members of the political left and directly with the DNC.

    The left wing media is the DNC’s equivalent to Pravda.

    • Seriously, people need to read about the John Doe investigations.

      The frightening thing is progressives probably think the investigators did nothing wrong.

        • From the Rationalizations List:

          This is as good a place as any to mention some of the more popular distortions of the Golden Rule used to validate unethical conduct, like…

          Do unto others as you know others would do unto you.

          Do unto others what they did unto you.

          Do unto others as you wish others would do unto you even though you wouldn’t deserve it.

          Do unto others as those others treat others.

          Do unto others as they threatened to do unto you.

          Do unto others as others who think like you do would also do to those others.

          Do unto others according to how you feel about what they did unto you.

          Do unto others before they do it unto you.

          Do unto me as you would want to have done unto you if you were as devoid of civilized values as I am.

          As for #58, it translates into…

          “Do unto others as if the others felt like I do, even though they may not.”

          • Well, for what it’s worth, when an opposing attorney asks for a courtesy, I always explain to the client, we agree to it, because we will eventually need one ourselves. (The Golden Rule).

            Of course, if a lawyer refuses my request for a courtesy, I explain that I will do unto you as you have done onto me. I think that is fair; it is the only way to encourage the Golden Rule.


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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.