In 2019, The Federalist is more liberal than Buzzfeed
Upon first glance, it looked like Fox News’ Tucker Carlson was going to be in trouble. A photo was circulating that featured him with a sex worker. Kate Aurthur, Chief Los Angeles Correspondent of BuzzFeed News shared the photo on Twitter in an attempt to shame and mob the conservative superstar.
When Buzzfeed’s Joe Bernstein isn’t busy slandering PewDiePie or doxxing a 14-year-old girl for having edgy YouTube content, he writes the occasional profile. Recently, he set his sights on Andy Ngo—a prominent journalist who frequently gets in harm’s way as he documents the activities of Antifa. Ngo has been doing this work for a long time, and he’s good at it. He’s part of the new alt media that with backpack and bus pass goes after a story with nothing but cell phones, GoPros, and apps.
Bernstein travelled to Portland and managed to document the moments leading up to and after Antifa’s violent June 29th assault on Ngo. While conceding that the attack was unprovoked, and that Ngo was a helpless victim, he is hesitant to give Ngo the credit he deserves for his excellent journalism. Bernstein was fair at times (by Buzzfeed’s standards), but what’s striking about his article is that it reads like a last-minute rewrite done to accommodate for the inconvenient fact that Antifa brutally assaulted Ngo during the course of its writing.
Language that reveals Bernstein’s original bias still peppers the piece: “I was in talks to shadow him at the upcoming demonstration, which I thought might be a good way to illustrate how Ngo constructs an incendiary political narrative out of a narrow selection of facts.”
Bernstein suggests that Ngo lacks integrity where Antifa is concerned. Then real violence happened and Bernstein found out the facts didn’t support his supposition. To his credit, Bernstein tells the truth about the assault itself: “Nothing he did that day suggested that he planned or even secretly wanted to be assaulted, which has been a common enough refrain in the days since from some on the left. The attack was not provoked.”
But without missing a beat, he pivots to a position of typical Buzzfeed-style victim-blaming: “Ngo has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months, his star rising along with the severity of the encounters.”
Bernstein writes almost apologetically about Ngo’s Antifa attackers, referring to them as a “leaderless activist group … that has been skillfully transmogrified by the conservative media into one of the gravest threats facing Americans in 2019—the rampant id of an already irrational left.” It’s almost as if an Antifa member didn’t firebomb a federal immigration facility just last week.
Bernstein is right to profile Ngo. This is a new kind of journalism that intones the old standards, but also has to create new ones. But he speaks of Ngo’s work in low key insults: “He is willing to make himself the story and to stream himself doing it. … I’m not even sure Ngo is a troll.” The fact that Bernstein is so obsessed with Ngo’s “star” status is very telling.
Bernstein talks about the Ngo attack footage like its akin to a wannabe it girl’s attention-grabbing sex tape as opposed to police evidence of a criminal assault. In new media, the journalist is as much a part of the story as the story itself.
No one is fooling themselves anymore into believing that there is true objectivity. The presence of a journalist while covering a story or event absolutely changes that story, it changes the behaviour of the actors in the story, and the individual journalist’s perspective colours the way the story is reported. The public is too smart to not know when their story is being told, and to get in on the action.
Journalists of the alt and new media aren’t fooling themselves into believing that they are separate entities, flies on proverbial walls, they know they’re as much a part of what they’re covering as the story itself. The best they can do is be as objective as possible with regard to their own perspective, and Ngo, even when bleeding and cut up, excels at observing the story, his place in it, and his perception. Bernstein minimizes Ngo’s freelance work by calling it “Uberized” and geared to “inflammatory content.”
Reporting is not the same beast as it was in the 20th Century. Newsrooms are consistently decimated. Writers get paid based on clicks. Freelance journalists go out there and do the work the mainstream media won’t do, and then are shamed for it. New media writers have to earn readers’ trust that the mainstream media has so casually tossed away. The reporter is both the conduit and the brand, and every word they write is their own, for which they alone are accountable.
Bernstein writes, “Since then, Ngo has maintained a running list on Twitter of alleged hate crimes that have turned out to be fabrications, exaggerations, or committed by minority groups against other minority groups. The entries in the list, which now run to well more than a hundred, have been retweeted hundreds of thousands of times.”
This seems to be a very dubious thing for a person purporting to be an objective journalist to point out. The goal of journalism should be to report truths, no matter how inconvenient. And in this current age of social panic, documenting hoaxes is vital work.
Bernstein goes on to describe Ngo’s methods as “unsafe, inimical to good journalism, and border on propagandistic,” but then adds: “he’s not a grifter.” Bernstein’s heartless rendering of Ngo’s ordeal and sliming of his professional work is maddening to behold. Especially since it’s rendered in such a glib tone.
What is the point of a journalist trying to take down another journalist? Bernstein doesn’t attack Ngo for errors, for misreporting, or for any professional reason, but merely because he doesn’t like his style or his presumed ideology.
As Claire Lehmann quite rightly points out, these kind of journalist-journalist hit pieces are likely to continue. It’s a symptom of the fact that the established outlets are rapidly dying. They don’t know what to do about it, or how to compete with the lean, hungry new outlets, so they attack. “As the media industry contracts, you will increasingly see journalists focusing their criticism on other journalists. Normal readers will increasingly switch off, leading to further contraction.”
If you want to take someone down, outshine them. There’s no call for this kind of professional discourtesy. But the old heads don’t feel a kinship with the new writers. And the new writers are too busy trying to stake a claim to reach out to the more established crowd.
Bernstein concludes with a confession:
If I’m being honest, I wasn’t only thinking about his safety. I was afraid of being the reporter who did not prevent Andy Ngo from being beaten. I was also, if I’m being really honest, afraid of being the reporter who prevented Andy Ngo from being beaten. I realized very clearly that anyone documenting the scene at that moment had the power to put me in any public context they wished to, had the power to change my life. I was aware how that would be good content, and how that might feel like violence.
It’s a stunning admission. It’s rhetorically clever because Bernstein is painting himself as a flawed and conflicted character. But it also reveals his cowardice, and his depressingly progressive tendency to equate language and narrative with actual violence.
Bernstein claims that he doesn’t want to be part of the story, but he’s aware of the fact that he has no control over it. He’s part of the story whether he wants to be or not. The time when there was a fourth wall between journalists and their subjects is gone. We’re all documenting, and we’re all documented.
In the end, Bernstein comes off jealous of Ngo’s journalistic acuity and popularity. His reporting on Ngo’s reporting is shallow and careerist. He dwells on Ngo’s rising star paragraph after paragraph in a way that suggests that he’s reflecting on his and his outlet’s fading limelight. It’s not a good look, but it is a look that Buzzfeed wears often these days.
Around a week ago, we were going to write about a 14-year-old YouTuber named Soph. She’s funny, extremely articulate, and problematic as hell. We decided not to because of her age. Like is the case with Greta Thunberg or Desmond is Amazing, there is something weird about propping up children to deliver adult messages. However fascinating and strange the case of Soph is, she is still a kid.
We decided that signal boosting her in order to deliver a message regarding free speech would be much the same as the way Thunberg’s supporters use her for climate change activism and Desmond’s supporters use him for LGBT activism.
But now BuzzFeed’s resident woke scold, Joe Bernstein, (famous for slandering PewDiePie as a white supremacist and Jordan Peterson as a gateway to the alt-right) has written a hit piece on her. Hilariously, BuzzFeed pixelated Soph’s face to protect her in an article that trashes her and directs people to her social media profiles.
Why is it okay to signal-boost minors so long as mainstream media is into their message? Children climate change activists, setting off on their own, noble crusade, get co-opted into advertising messages. Pre-pubescent drag stars get lauded as heroic and brave for allowing themselves to be sexualized for adult consumption. Little girls in beauty pageants, with caked-on makeup, tottering around on high heels, are given their own reality TV shows. But let an opinionated 14-year-old turn the camera on herself and speak her own words, and the some woke BuzzFeed writer with a hipster moustache will try to rally the internet to get her cancelled.
This shouldn’t be surprising, of course, because cancelling is all the rage. But progressives who are pissed about the things Soph has said on her own channel should take a step back and examine their ethical perspectives. Do they really want to be on the wrong side of history for having punched down against a teenager for speaking her mind?
Soph is young, vocal, vibrant, and yes, incendiary, but she is thinking critically and speaking profanely about everything that comes across the internet, from school shootings, suicide bombings, trans ideology, toxic masculinity, child brides, psychopharmaceutical therapy for children, bullying, cancel culture, and anything else that catches her ire. Her current opinions are not going to be her final opinions, but for the love of God, just let the kid be a kid and make mistakes she can learn from.
Let us be clear: Soph says some pretty harsh stuff, including racist, vulgar, Islamophobic, and homophobic language. The worst of what she has said can be easily found online in screen shots from a Discord server, and it’s not pretty. (But who hasn’t said edgy things at the age of 14?) This article is not an endorsement of her views. But agreeing with her views isn’t the point. Advocating for her right to have them, and to use the platforms at her disposal to express them, is.
Tamping down the unruly youth is never a good look, and appearances, according to Soph, are the only thing these woke fear-mongers care about anyway. You can think Soph is a hateful little creature with toxic opinions, but she must be afforded the right to express them. Comedy legend Ricky Gervais put it perfectly when he said: “If you don’t believe in free speech for people who you hate, fear and disagree with, then you don’t believe in free speech.” This is how to ensure that we remain living in a free society.
In BuzzFeed’s warped reality, it’s totally okay for adults to monitor and harass children in the name of “progress.” After all, all Bernstein really wants us to contemplate is whether or not “YouTube has an obligation to protect such users from themselves.” Of course that’s what he’s interested in. Censorship is always proposed under the guise of safety. And BuzzFeed isn’t alone. Apparently Talia Lavin of the Washington Post was also on the case.
If they do succeed in eliminating her from the internet, then what happens to her? Will she sent to a BuzzFeed-approved YouTuber reeducation camp where she will be reprogrammed to only say “safe” things? There’s great precedent for leftists to resort to these kinds of measures when merely compelling speech and banning content proves ineffective. When we were growing up, any time our parents told us to stay away from something in culture, it basically guaranteed that we would head straight toward that thing.
Soph and other edgy kids are a result of the pendulum of culture swinging back the other way. What they’re mostly doing is making fun of dopey people like Joe Bernstein. These kids are tired of being told to think within the lines, and they want to scribble in the margins. Preventing this young person from expressing her opinions will achieve nothing other than radicalizing her. If she is booted off of YouTube and Twitter, she will move to corners of the dark web where real bad players congregate.
In a video that YouTube removed due to her threats against a YouTube CEO (yeah, she went there), Soph declared, “I’ve got a Luger and a mitochondrial disease.” Perhaps if Soph adhered to the script of sick children, wasting away in Children’s ICU’s with visits from clowns and Make-A-Wish afternoons at the ballpark, she would play in Peoria. But she’s an edgy comedian. A little George Carlin in the making. Bernstein portrayed her comments in the now-removed video as “a far-right child comedian threatening to murder the executive of the video site that has made her famous, for trying to protect her from pedophiles: the state of YouTube in 2019.” Of course, Bernstein is being disingenuous, completely ignoring the consistently satirical nature of her content.
Much of her content advocates for children to be heard, not boxed, packaged, and sold back to themselves. Plus, she’d like less homework.
You can’t expect them to end up fine when you let your kids consume toxic food, have free access to all types of hellish entertainment, be in school and away from you for unhealthy amounts of time, and have overwhelming amounts of homework. And when your kid finally goes off the rails, you just throw Ritalin or Adderall down their hatch, disabling them chemically, just so they don’t bug you anymore. I know it’s convenient for you to virtually take the batteries out of your kid so he’s a little less spastic than his usual self, but that’s not very ethical, is it?Soph, Suicide Bomb
In the end, we suspect that BuzzFeed’s attempt to ruin this young person’s career and life will backfire. BuzzFeed has a right to their opinion, but they don’t have the right to demand she be silenced.
Which brings us back to Joe Bernstein, the author of Soph’s hit piece. It appears Bernstein has expressed some extreme views of his own online, including this 2014 classic: “KILL a straight white man on your way to work tomorrow.” How typically hypocritical. I guess it’s okay to be edgy if you work for BuzzFeed.
In the end, Bernstein’s efforts to harm Soph will most likely have the same result as his previous cracks at PewDiePie. It’s called the Streisand Effect and it never fails. She will appeal to more and more fans as BuzzFeed continues their downward spiral toward moral and literal bankruptcy.
BuzzFeed continues to litter the internet with trash reports and listicles since US President Donald Trump called it “a failing pile of garbage” for uncritically reporting on a fake dossier on Trump (paid for by his political opponents) back in 2017.
Shortly after the Notre Dame fire went viral online, BuzzFeed fake-news patrol journalists published an article—“Here Are The Hoaxes And Misinformation About The Notre Dame Fire”—claiming there was “zero evidence Muslims were responding to the fire with with ‘smiley faces.’” The article went on to say that Paul Joseph Watson, contributor to far-right conspiracy theorist website InfoWars, “tweeted a link to a video that claimed to show Muslim people celebrating the fire” and that the video “does not show what people on Facebook were reacting to.” The BuzzFeed journalists’ debunking of the alleged hoax concludes “there is no proof to back up this claim.”
Although InfoWars and Watson often carelessly publish conjecture and misinformation from social media, the video he cited was in fact a live feed of the Notre Dame burning from French media company Brut and there are now well over 2,000 smiley face reactions to the video.
After Watson made a response video ridiculing the fake news and misinformation in the BuzzFeed report on “hoaxes and misinformation,” the incorrect section of the article was reworked and an unclear correction issued at the bottom: “Paul Joseph Watson’s tweet showed the video where the Facebook reactions were posted. A previous version of the story said the source wasn’t clear.”
Yet the corrected version of the article still incorrectly says the video “purports to show positive reactions to a video of Notre Dame burning, implying that people with Arabic names are celebrating.” Anyone can take less than a minute to click on Brut’s video of Notre Dame burning and then click on the smiley face reactions to see that many of the people who chose that reaction have Arabic names.
The BuzzFeed journalists correctly concluded that “Facebook emojis on a video do not tell us anything about a group of people.” The smiley face emoticons were the minority of reactions to the video and Facebook has billions of users, so obviously a fraction of users will react grotesquely to bad news.
However, when it comes to right-wing extremism, these same BuzzFeed journalists have no problem over-generalizing an entire group of people.
In a joint ongoing investigation with the Toronto Star, BuzzFeed is looking into “political parties, third-party pressure groups, foreign powers, and individuals … influencing Canada’s political debate in the run-up to this fall’s federal election.” Thus, far their investigations have almost exclusively targeted far-right fringe groups when looking at domestic actors.
One report from the Toronto Star–BuzzFeed investigation was on Faith Goldy and white nationalist groups being banned from Facebook. The report quoted Evan Balgord, the executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, an organization that discriminates by only looking into hate involving far-right, white extremist groups and individuals within Canada, instead of all individuals and groups promoting hate in Canada.
Coincidentally, the Trudeau government announced $7 million to divvy up between news monitors to “critically assess online news reporting.” It’s unclear whether BuzzFeed or the Toronto Star will be among the recipients to monitor the truth.
The Trudeau government is also waiting to give out most of $595 million to bail out political journalism after the election is completed.
Trudeau and his ministers have recently been repeating the talking point that white nationalism is a grave threat to Canada’s democracy.