I Am Seriously Considering Banning Any Commenter Who Argues Here That The New York Times Isn’t Despicably Biased And Untrustworthy…

Not just biased, mind you, but despicably biased.

If you log onto NYTimes.com now, and check above the fold, you will see a lovely story about the Jurassic Park cast and Kelly Clarkson’s performance. If you scroll down, down, down, down, down, you will find a story about the attempted assassination of a Justice. By my count, the Kavanaugh assassination attempt is perhaps the sixteenth most important news item of the day!

This revelation from last week didn’t come from the Gateway Pundit or Breitbart or another unreliable right-wing attack site avoided by Ethics Alarms. It was the observation of Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the President of the Harlan Institute. He was writing on the Volokh Conspiracy, which specializes in legal scholarship, and isn’t read much by Average Joe, because AJ usually can’t understand it and its articles require more than the attention span of puppy. And he was right.

Even consistently left-biased Five Thirty-Eight proprietor Nate Silver was critical…

…though tellingly equivocal: “it’s sorta crazy.” No, Nate, it’s fucking outrageous, signature significance, and a smoking gun. A genuine attempt on the life of a Supreme Court Justice after prominent Democrats and pro-fetus killing activists seeded efforts to intimidate the conservatives on the Court, and it barely makes it to the online equivalent of the Times front page? Ah, those wacky Times editors! Silver’s reaction to the Times’ abdication of responsible journalism is nearly as disgusting as the Times conduct itself.

And damn you for making me praise Bill Maher, who was more direct than either Blackmon or Silver. “They just wear their bias on their sleeves,” the cynically maneuvering pundit/comic said on his HBO show yesterday referring to the Times, “and if it’s not part of something that feeds our narrative, fuck it, we bury it.”

Well, yes, and its been like this for many years. Bill’s just noticing it now because he’s sensed a likely sea-change in tolerance for the Left’s totalitarian aspirations, and he’s been “reading the room” the past few months. (Don’t trust him, don’t believe him: as soon as the pendulum swings back, he’ll be calling Republican women “cunts” and “twats” again.)

Over at the Daily Signal, Katrina Trinko writes in part,

…when it comes to political violence in the United States today, here’s a maxim you can always rely on: If the victim or likely victim is on the right, the perpetrator is simply a lone wolf. But if the victim or likely victim is on the left, the perpetrator was fueled by dangerous rhetoric. Doubt me? Just consider how when then-Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., was shot in 2011, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was blamed for inciting violence with a map with a series of political targets—despite there being zero evidence tying Giffords’ shooter to Palin. 

Yet in 2017, when a gunman shot five people at a Republican lawmakers’ practice baseball game in Alexandria, Virginia, there was little in the way of a national conversation.

It looks like 2017, not 2011, is the road map for what will happen in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh, despite there being clear evidence Kavanaugh’s would-be shooter was motivated by politics. As noted in the criminal complaint, Roske told police “he was upset about the leak of a recent Supreme Court draft decision regarding the right to abortion as well as the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.”

In light of Roske’s motivation, it seems relevant to remember the remarks of then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in 2020 when, amid a discussion of abortion, he said in part, “I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.” It seems just a smidgen pertinent that in May, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki refused to condemn the protests outside of Supreme Court justices’ homes, which started after the leaked draft of a high court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

And yeah, it seems, oh, the teeniest bit germane that the Women’s March (a favorite leftist protest) has called for a “summer of rage.”

But don’t hold your breath waiting to see these sound bites play nonstop on media.

Making the hypocrisy of the whole situation even more evident is tonight’s prime-time hearings on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which will likely focus on whether President Donald Trump’s remarks helped incite the riot. Not only are Democrats focusing on this, but three major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) are giving up their most valuable TV hours to cover this hearing.

Despicable. Disgusting. Also, of course, unethical.

But back to the Times…a few months ago, Ethics Alarms was graced by an self-anointed Voice of Reason, who constantly harped on a single theme: the New York Times periodically made mistakes, but it wasn’t so consistently politically biased that it was untrustworthy, and mean old Ethics Alarms unfairly hammered on the Grey Lady. I put up with his gaslighting far too long, and eventually he self-exiled with a heavy sigh of “Well, I tried.”

Yecchh. This story is the tipping point for me. There was never a valid argument that the Times wasn’t a fully committed Democratic Party propaganda organ, not after…

  • …the announcement in 2016 that it was its duty to report events in such a way as to keep Donald Trump out of the White House, not after
  • …the “1619 Project,” not after
  • …its months of misrepresenting the realities of the “Russian collusion” investigation, not after
  • ….it buried the sexual assault accusation against Joe Biden by a former staffer for three weeks, not after
  • …its daily scare-mongering about the pandemic (like a death-spike graph running the full length of the front page into the masthead) until Trump was safely defeated, not after
  • …the Times apologized for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for a military response to the Black Lives Matter George Floyd riots across the country, and not after
  • …declaring the Hunter Biden laptop revelations “Russian disinformation” while it might have hurt Joe Biden’s chances at the polls.

At this point, claiming that the Times isn’t biased is like claiming the Moon is made of cheese.  It’s not an opinion, it’s a deliberate attempt to deceive. I don’t need or want participants in the discussions here who are either commenting in bad faith, so biased themselves that they can’t recognize what is right in front of them, or so intellectually limited that they can’t connect dots the size of pancakes. The New York Times isn’t even trying to hide its propaganda role any more, and I won’t be insulted by commenters who Jumbo me and the readers here with “Bias? What bias?

By all means, defend any specific Times report or article you can. But don’t tell me I’m imagining that the paper regularly engages in deceptive and unethical journalism regarding politics and progressive goals and positions. It does.

The fact that nobody at the paper saw anything amiss with treating an assassination attempt on a sitting SCOTUS Justice as a footnote proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

7 thoughts on “I Am Seriously Considering Banning Any Commenter Who Argues Here That The New York Times Isn’t Despicably Biased And Untrustworthy…

  1. You could suggest that they read Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias, before they comment. It might help.
    Gooldberg used to describe himself himself as a “…life-long liberal modeled after the 1960s ideals of the Democratic Party.”, but more recently, “I am not a liberal the way liberals are today,…where they’re angry, nasty, closed minded, and not mainstream, but fringe. …Now, even when I agree with liberals on this issue or that, I no longer want to be on their team.”

    • I’ve read that book, and thought it was pretty good. One part that stuck out to me was his statement that media bias doesn’t come from them sitting around in a dark, smoke-filled room and plotting how they are going to skew the news in their political sides’ favor, it comes from how they see the world and the things they take for granted. It occurred to me when I first read it that even if there was no grand conspiracy, the fact that all these people think alike, and are so dismissive of anything outside their worldview, the seeds were there FOR a conspiracy, I think we are seeing those seeds germinate now. Using the rationale, “These are not ordinary times”, they are openly slanting the news to favor what they believe is a just cause, because allowing their precious ideals to fail is simply not an option for them.

  2. Biased, deceptive and unethical journalism is also cowardly journalism; it is indeed the antithesis of real journalism.

  3. Don’t forget the fact that the editor never took Charles Blow aside after his ridiculous article calling on the Trump presidency to be paused and told him, “we get it. You hate Trump. Now turn the page on this election and move on to something else.” Instead it continued to publish his unhinged rants until they became boring.

  4. Can you imagine the coverage if a Young Republican had been apprehended outside RBG’s residence WITH A GLOCK?

    • I’d just like to see coverage on the report I saw that the group that publicized Kavanaugh’s home address has now publicized times and places for the Barrett children. Ok, and some condemnation from the left too.

  5. The leftist leadership has had a huge disdain for an independent judiciary.

    Rioters and arsonists attacked the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse in Portland in July of 2020. There should had universal condemntation of the riots.

    There was not.

    The leftist leadership in the Democratic Party and the network broadcast and print media started this gaslighting campaign about sToRmTrOoPeRs KiDnApPiNg PeAcEfUL pRoTeStErS. Governor Kate Brown described “secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles”. Senator Ron Wyden called the federal agents an “occupying army”. Mayor Ted Wheeler told president Trump to take his “troops” and leave. Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted that “Trump and his stormtroopers must be stopped”.

    Mark Pettibone claimed to have been kidnapped by federal agents, transported in an unmarked van, and then released without being told what he was charged with. These people simply repeated his conclusions withourt criticism.

    The Oregon state government actually went to court to get an injunction to micromanage how federal agent went about their business of protecting federal courthouses.

    Due to this campaign of lies, Walls of Moms and Walls of Vets were recruited to shield rioters and aronsists from federal agents. Christopher David, who claimed to be a Navy veteran, actually interrupted the agents protecting the courthouse in Portland.

    Now I will address the arguments being used in this gaslighting campaign.

    They Were Kidnapping Protesters

    Apprehensions by law enforcement are not kidnappings. Just so long as there is probable cause that the arrest subject committed a crime the subject had not previously been charged with, it can not be a kidnapping.

    of course, when a protest turns into a riot, sometimes peaceful protesters who were at the scene are arrested because the cops had probable cause. If they decline to prtess charges (perhaps because there was no other supporting evidence, or they found exculpatory evidence), then perhaps they ethically owe the protester some cash for the inconvenience, but by law it was not a kidnapping.

    Unmarked Vans

    There were allegation that protesters, including Pettibone, were transported in unmarked vans. Assuming this is true, there is nothing wrong with this. Law enforcement has had a custiom and tradition of using unmarked vehicles even before automobiles were available for purchase by the general public. There simply was not anything wrong with it.

    Federal Agents Were Straying Far From the Courthouse

    Again, this is not wrong. They have the authority to go anywhere in public. If they enter private properrty without consent, they must do so within the restrictions of 4th Amendment case law. There is nothing wrong with dfederal agencies sending agents away from federal courthouses to apprehend suspects.

    Feds were Invading Portland

    Portland is part of the United States of America. as such, it can not be an invasion.

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.