The New York Times hits new low, attacks hero dog and veteran within 24 hours
The Times has gone through a rough couple of days, having been the centre of back-to-back controversies in the Twittersphere.
The first incident saw the Times accusing Jack Posobiec, a well known right-wing media figure whose reputation has been smeared as an “alt-right conspiracy theorist” due to his promotion of ‘fake news’ like that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself, being accused of pushing fake news, despite his direct citing of the New York Times.
Posobiec had Tweeted that US Army Officer Alex Vindman had “reportedly been advising the Ukrainian government” on how to counter President Trump’s foreign policy goals.
Soon thereafter, CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy attempted to “call out” Posobiec, citing a line from an article by NYT writers Michael Grynbaum and Davey Alba, in which they deny ever having run such a thing, stating “Jack Posobiec…tweeted the falsehood that Mr. Vindman had been advising the Ukrainian government on how to counter Mr. Trump’s foreign policy goals. Mr. Posobiec cited The New York Times as his source — in fact, The Times reported no such thing.”
The problem for Darcy and the Times, though, is that they very obviously did run such a thing, with Posobiec tweeting a screenshot of the direct line that he was citing.
“Sun Tzu sais that you can never really meet a person, in terms of understanding, until they’re pushed to the brink and then you see how they act, and they say at that point, that’s when you meet that person. I disagree with that, but folks, yesterday, we met the New York Times. We met the New York Times on the field of information warfare, and they lost,” said Posobiec in a Periscope the following day.
“They tried to come for Poso, and Poso had the facts on his side. They tried to spread an information warfare attack on me with a massive hit piece, and I destroyed them, because I have the facts on my side.”
The New York Times v. Dog
Just a day later, the Times again embarrassed themselves by fact-checking a clearly photoshopped image tweeted by President Trump.
The photo, which features Trump placing a paw-shaped metal on Conan, the dog who chased down ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi until the terrorist blew himself up, alongside three of his children.
The photo, a clearly doctored image created by the photoshop team at the Daily Wire, became a thorn in the side of the Times, as they ran a headline reading “Trump Tweets Faked Photo Of Hero Dog Getting a Medal.”
“The dog appeared to have been edited over a 2017 Medal of Honor recipient,” stated the Times’ article, which has since reached a fine ratio of 516 Retweets to over 2,800 replies.
Though many found the photo “disrespectful” because it covers the face of medal of honour recipient James McCloughan. When the Times asked McCloughan for his opinion on the photo, the Times says “he interpreted it as Mr. Trump recognizing the dog’s heroism. He certainly was not offended and laughed when he compared the two images.”
The days leading up to the latest CNN Democratic debate were undoubtedly stressful for Bernie Sanders as two new bombshell allegations concerning his presidential campaign arose. The first story claimed Sanders once made sexist remarks to Elizabeth Warren in a private meeting, while the latest story reveals footage of a salaried Bernie 2020 organizer advocating for political violence and terroristic acts. For strange reasons, one story is getting much more attention than the other.
The shocking footage came from Project Veritas, an undercover journalism group that’s exposed corruption and bias at CNN on numerous occasions. Sanders was already in the network’s crosshairs after Warren’s claim, and pressing this would’ve perhaps changed the flow of the entire debate. But an ongoing grudge seems to be preventing CNN from entertaining PV’s story, even if it can be used to help them sabotage Sanders’ campaign.
On Monday, the CNN piece made its way to the top of the headlines when Warren alleged Sanders once made sexist remarks to her at a private meeting in 2018. According to Warren’s claim verified only by herself, Sanders said that he didn’t believe a woman could win the presidency. So on Tuesday, the moderators came loaded with several items for Sanders on the sexism allegations, but any concerns of his radical field organizer managed to elude the debate.
Earlier that day, the footage was published, which shows Kyle Jurek, an organizer for Sanders’ 2020 election campaign advocating for assaulting police officers, burning down cities, murdering ideological opponents, and supporting gulags, among other things. Jurek’s claims involve the Sanders campaign directly and predict responses that will follow would he lose the election.
“If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC Convention, f*cking Milwaukee will burn,” he stated.
Jurek continues: “The cops are gonna be the ones that are getting f*cking beaten in Milwaukee.”
He goes on to explain how the United States, like Nazi Germany, will have to spend billions of dollars re-educating Trump supporters, or “Nazis” as he calls them. According to Jurek, that’s what Bernie’s free-tuition proposal is all about — re-education of “Nazis.”
“Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their f*cking people to not be nazis. Like, we’re probably going to have to do the same f*cking thing here.” Jurek tells the journalist.
He continues: “That’s kind of what Bernie’s whole f*cking like “hey, free education for everybody!” because we’re going to have to teach you to not be a f*cking nazi.”
The Sanders campaign has yet to comment on any of the claims made by the salaried staff member.
But none of that was of interest to CNN or any of the moderators that night. In fact, over a week later, the story has not been mentioned or covered once by the network. You’d think a network still repeatedly claiming to be unbiased would entertain stories from all walks of journalism, not just the sources they like personally. Instead, they’ve doubled down on the sexism allegations that they grilled Sanders with on stage.
“Why did you say that?” Sanders was asked about the comment.
He responded: “Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it.” followed by many reasons as to why the claims are invalid.
The moderator persisted: “Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here. You’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?”
“That’s correct,” he said.
Moderator Abby Phillips then redirected the question at Warren as if everything Sanders had just said vanished into thin air. She asked: “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” to which she replied, “I disagreed.” The pivot was so strikingly unfair and one-sided that it sparked a wave of laughter in the room and a sense of disbelief as to what just happened. Many anticipated Sanders to be then grilled about the footage, but it never happened.
So what happens whenever an attempt to smear a politician is backed by claims so absurd and unfair? For one, the sexism allegations haven’t hurt Sanders at all. In fact, they seem to have helped him substantially. Shortly after, Sanders announced that in the two days following the debate, he’d received more than 200,000 contributions totalling nearly $4 million. CNN’s smear backfired—badly.
They could’ve easily used Project Veritas’s story to their advantage on top of the sexism allegations to erode at Sanders’ campaign as a whole, but pride got in the way, and it ricocheted back at the network. After all, giving a few extra sympathy points to Sanders by accident will always be more virtuous in their eyes than taking conservative newsgroups seriously—especially ones that have unearthed dirt amongst them. To them, it’s not about truth; it’s about constituents.
By acknowledging the Sanders story, they now legitimize every CNN story from Veritas after chalking the group off as an anti-media organization. That can’t happen. Acting like Veritas doesn’t exist is the only path forward for the network despite other mainstream networks running the story. It sure does make you wonder how massive a story from Project Veritas would have to be for CNN to run it and take the group seriously, if any.
Monday’s march for the 2nd Amendment in Richmond, Virginia went off without a hitch. Contrary to early reports that “swarms” of “white nationalists” would be descending upon the Virginia state capitol to protest gun control laws enacted by the commonwealth’s General Assembly, most—if not all—of the gun rights activists remained orderly and self-composed.
Gun rights marchers expelled speakers who called for violence. In one instance, an antifa member “Goad Gatsby” called out a neo-Nazi named Jovi Val, who allegedly wore a swastika to the event.
Despite the peaceful protest, NBC reporters portrayed the event in negative terms, and even lied about it. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes claimed in a broadcast that the rally sent an “explicit and implicit message” of “don’t you dare enact our policies, if you do, we will use these guns against you.” If anything, the Framers would be proud of seeing Americans generations ahead of them stand up for their God-given rights to defend themselves against the tyranny of an overbearing government.
The media’s message is that standing up for your rights is a violent action in and of itself—it’s a narrative that continues to be propped up. Writing for the men’s publication, disgraced New Yorker fact-checker Talia Lavin says that “the threat of violence in Richmond,” and the few arrests of alleged neo-Nazis planning violence that were made prior to the event “sent other groups into hiding.”
A Canadian neo-Nazi is currently being prosecuted for his alleged intention to commit violence in Richmond. He recorded a video calling for “violent revolution” ahead of his failed attempt to participate in the gun rights rally.
According to Lavin’s spin, the thousands of protesters attending the rally (which includes activists from the Black Panthers movement, pro-gay rights libertarians, 2nd wave feminists, and many others who support the right to bear arms) only “grumblingly abided” Governor Ralph Northam’s state of emergency declaration. The description she uses to describe the marchers is biased, to say the least:
“But just outside the legions of police barricades, twice that number of people roamed the streets of Richmond bearing a bristling mass of rifles, from AR-15s to massive Barrett sniper rifles. Some wore skull masks; others waved Confederate flags. Members of hate groups like the League of the South and the American Guard, as well as the Proud Boys, mingled openly; some of the latter were wearing patches that said “RWDS”—an acronym for “Right-Wing Death Squad.” Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones gave a speech from a Terradyne battle tank.”
A Terradyne “battle tank”? Really?
Firstly, the Terradyne is a glorified SUV. And second, even APCs aren’t tanks. Those BearCats the police use? Yeah, those aren’t tanks either. Come on, journalists—you can’t keep confusing Remington 870s for AR-15s.
Digression aside, the mention of “skull masks,” “massive Barrett sniper rifles,” and “Confederate flags” paints a less-than-friendly picture of the march. But as video footage of the march itself exists, it’s a false depiction of a peaceful event that’s very easily dispelled. We can watch the footage too, you know.
One can see now why Lavin was forced to resign from her position as fact-checker at the New Yorker after falsely accusing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent of having a Nazi tattoo. The tattoo in question was a Maltese Cross, often seen in paramedic and firefighter insignias. One wonders if she will issue a correction properly describing the event from an unbiased, fact-based perspective.
Lavin then concedes, or more accurately laments, the fact that no one was shot at the event, describing it as “a frankly extraordinary turn of events given the sheer amount of weaponry, the density of the crowd, and the weapons stuffed casually into backpacks or held loosely in the crooks of pale arms.”
“Pale arms.” The subtext is clear: white people who stand up for their right to self-determination are prone to acts of violence.
There’s an old saying made popular by gun rights activists that holds true, especially following the media’s inability to reconcile the abundance of firearms with the lack of violence: an armed society is a polite society.
Diverging, or at least pretending to diverge from the mainstream view that “man with guns = bad,” Lavin opines that both “fringe-right publications” as well as the mainstream media declared the event a “peaceful protest.” Why, it seems that reality may indeed have a conservative bias. None of this matters to Lavin, of course, who argues that violence was only “narrowly averted” because some wingnuts from a neo-Nazi organization called The Base were arrested prior to the event.
This is, of course, a poor read on the event. While neo-Nazis may have in fact been planning to enact violence at the Virginia state capitol, the fact remains that the estimated 22,000 people who walked for their right to bear arms had nothing but peaceful intentions. Also worth noting is the fact that the 22,000 figure, provided by Richmond authorities, is whittled down to a mere 6,000 by Lavin in her piece. Surely giving readers the impression that more than a few thousand people care about their 2nd Amendment rights is a fact that would fly in the face of her narrative that it’s an issue only dangerous neo-Nazi skull masks care about.
The piece is full of “what ifs” and “could haves”—what if The Base members weren’t arrested? They could’ve killed thousands of people, surely. Wouldn’t that feed ratings for an entire news cycle?
“There was, it was true, an absence of immediate bloodshed,” continues Lavin. “But what abounded, in that armed and insurrectionist sea of humanity, was the promise that bloodshed might happen at any time, should the will of the mob be thwarted.”
The promise of bloodshed isn’t a promise being made by those defending the 2nd Amendment. As the events in Waco and Ruby Ridge tell us, the only real bloodshed would be caused by a government overreaching and tyrannical in its nature. The right to bear arms is what prevents such violence from being enacted unto the citizenry. Thus always to Tyrants.
CBC, our national state broadcaster, falsely claimed that former Prime Minister Stephen Harper called for “regime change.” CTV made a similar claim, stating the Harper was calling for “Iranian regime change.”
The National Post’s Chris Selley was quick to call out the two establishment broadcasters, tweeting “Regime change” has a specific meaning that Harper doesn’t even remotely allude to in the passages quoted here. He went on to say that the headline was “pathetic.”
Gerald Butts, former Principal Secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, agreed with Selley about the fake headlines, chastizing CTV on Twitter by saying, “I’m not in the business of defending @stephenharper, but he didn’t use the phrase ‘regime change’ in this interview. It’s a loaded term to say the least.”
Many noted that the use of the phrase “regime change” in the headlines from these two major news outlets was highly irresponsible, leaving Canadians with the false impression that the former prime minister was calling for a coup or military action.
In fact, Harper never mentioned regime change. Speaking at a global summit in India, what Harper actually said was: “I don’t think any of us believe that Iran would have deliberately shot down an aircraft, but the very fact that Iran, believing such a thing could happen, would be allowing normal civilian traffic, I think, tells you something about the nature of that regime and its priorities.”
Harper followed this by saying “I do believe we need to see a change in Iran if we’re going to see peace in the Middle East.”
CBC has since issued a correction on Twitter and in their original story, stating: “The headline and lead paragraph of this story has been edited from a previous version that stated Stephen Harper said regime change was needed in Iran. In fact, Harper said “I do believe we need to see a change in Iran if we are going to see peace in the Middle East” and also said “I think without a change in the nature of the government of Tehran, the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil,” but he did not use the phrase ‘regime change’ specifically.”
American economist and New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman claims his IP address has been used to download child pornography.
In a tweet posted on Wednesday, Krugman states: “someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography.” Krugman then goes on to blame the attack on Qanon, an online right-wing conspiracy theory.
The tweet was met with an uproar, as thousands flocked to mock Krugman for his potential misfortune. The tweet quickly amassed over 4000 replies in less than two hours.
Krugman’s tweet has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump and his administration, went on to state that the New York Times were further investigating the matter.
Not all were as convinced of Krugman’s explanation. Some pointed out that cases of this matter are rare and typically handled by authorities.
Human Events managing editor Ian Miles Cheong tweeted, “Yeah that isn’t how IPs work. You’re in trouble, my dude.”
“It is, of course, possible that someone hacked his computer and used it as a server for illegal conduct. That does happen,” said journalist Mike Cernovich in a reply. Cernovich also tweeted “The receipt of unlawful images as described by Paul Krugman requires notifying the FBI. Honest to gosh, I’ve never seen anything like this on Twitter.”
This story will be updated when more information is made available.