Lefty Journalist Quits Leftmedia Outlet Over Censorship
On Thursday, journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote, “I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013.” You might ask, So what? Some leftist reporter has called it quits. Well, he’s done so because of the rampant media censorship of stories investigating Joe Biden’s corruption. Greenwald explains:
The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.
The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.
I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.
Greenwald expands that critique not only to The Intercept but to the Leftmedia as a whole:
Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice. I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.
But the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept. These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom. I began writing about politics fifteen years ago with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression, and — regardless of the risks involved — simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces me to submit my journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates.
“Suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates” — that about sums up the Left these days. And leftists are even silencing their friends if they dare to get “off message.” (Ask former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss.) Greenwald is no conservative (he was Edward Snowden’s pal on the NSA revelations), but he is a real journalist. And he published his Biden piece here, much of it centered on how the Leftmedia has become Biden’s Praetorian Guard, pushing demonstrably false information rather than asking even basic questions of the man who wants to become president of the United States.
What should journalists be curious about? Greenwald explains in his censored draft story:
All of these new materials [on Hunter Biden’s laptop], the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son’s business associates. …
The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden’s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son’s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried.
The Intercept’s response? Greenwald is a “grown person throwing a tantrum.” And it is he, not The Intercept, its editors claim, who has “strayed from his original journalistic roots.”
We quoted Greenwald’s friend and fellow real journalist Matt Taibbi earlier this week. Taibbi marveled, “The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies.”
Indeed, as we have written before, the corrupt alliance between the Democrat Party and the Leftmedia is the biggest threat to American Liberty we face today.
UK: Labour SUSPENDS Jeremy Corbyn after he DOWNPLAYS damning anti-Semitism report that found party 'harassed and discriminated against Jews' under him
The charges against Labour in damning 130-page report:
Labour breached the Equality Act 2010 by committing 'unlawful harassment' in two of the complaints investigated. They included 'using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears'.
One of the cases involved Ken Livingstone, who in 2016 defended MP Naz Shah over claims of anti-Semitism by claiming there was a smear campaign by 'the Israel lobby' to undermine and disrupt Mr Corbyn's leadership. He later resigned from the Labour Party after being suspended.
A further 18 cases were 'borderline', involving local councillors, local election candidates and Constituency Labour Party (CLP) officials.
Analysis of 70 anti-Semitism complaint files found 23 incidences of 'political interference' by Mr Corbyn's office and others.
This included 'clear examples of interference at various stages throughout the complaint handling process, including in decisions on whether to investigate and whether to suspend' party members.
The party's complaints process was 'inconsistent, poor, and lacking in transparency'.
In cases where a complaint of anti-Semitism was upheld, it was 'difficult to draw conclusions on whether the sanctions applied were fair and consistent'.
Recommendations made by the watchdog include commissioning an independent process to handle anti-Semitism complaints and acknowledging the effect political interference has had and implementing clear rules to stop it happening again.
Jeremy Corbyn became the first former Labour leader to ever be suspended by the party today after he downplayed a damning report into anti-Semitism that ruled that it illegally harassed and discriminated against Jews under his leadership.
A landmark 130-page report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found 'significant failings in the way the Labour Party has handled anti-Semitism complaints over the last four years' with 'specific examples of harassment, discrimination and political interference'.
Among the charges levelled at Labour were the fact that out of 70 anti-Semitism complains analysed, 23 showed signs of 'political interference' by Mr Corbyn's office and others.
They also blasted 'a lack of leadership within the Labour Party on these issues', which it said was 'hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism'.
Additionally they broke equalities law over two cases, including one which involved former London mayor Ken Livingstone 'using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears' in 2016, before he quit the party.
Mr Corbyn was not directly censured by the report, which looked at the party as a whole. But in a statement he released late this morning, he sparked fury by saying the 'scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media'.
New leader Sir Keir Starmer had initially side to sidestep the issue of whether he would take direct action against his predecessor in the wake of the report as he addressed reporters this morning.
This was despite saying: 'If - after all the pain, all the grief, and all the evidence in this report - there are still those who think there's no problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, that it's all exaggerated, or a factional attack, then, frankly, you are part of the problem too. And you should be nowhere near the Labour Party either.'
But the comments in the statement forced the party to act, and threatening to see Labour embroiled in another civil war over anti-semitism.
A spokeswoman for the Labour Party said: 'In light of his comments made today and his failure to retract them subsequently, the Labour Party has suspended Jeremy Corbyn pending investigation.
'He has also had the whip removed from the Parliamentary Labour Party.'
The EHRC served Labour with an unlawful act notice under the Equality Act over two cases - one of which involved comments made by former London major Ken Livingstone - and has been given until December 10 to act on recommendations in the report or find itself in court.
This afternoon Mr Corbyn denied he was 'part of the problem' and told broadcasters he would not quit Labour:
'Of course not. I am proud to be a member of the Labour Party, I joined the Labour party when I was 16, I've fought racism all my life, and I'll fight racism for the rest of my life,' he said.
He later tweeted that the suspension was a 'political intervention'.
But Jewish Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge said: 'This is the right decision following Corbyn's shameful reaction to the EHRC report. 'Labour is finally saying enough is enough, anti-Semitism can never be tolerated in our party. Now we can finally move on.'
Can Hate Win an Election?
I don’t understand why this election is even close. Donald Trump draws huge crowds whose energy and enthusiasm is palpable. When Joe Biden ventures from his basement, the handful of onlookers not only look bored, they look like they may have been paid to be there.
In a normal election, even a hint that a presidential candidate is showing signs of dementia would be lethal. A credible accusation that a candidate may have traded access for dollars would be impossible for the candidate to ignore.
So why are polls showing Joe Biden in the lead?
The answer, I am told, is that no one is actually for Joe Biden. They are against Donald Trump. They’re so much against Trump that they are willing to overlook almost any Biden deficiency or transgression.
For the first time in the history of American politics, an entire presidential campaign is being managed by a strategy of sitting on the sidelines. Why is Biden not campaigning? Because it appears that nothing he can say or do would change a single vote.
At Trump rallies, adoring supporters are now yelling “We love you.” Biden supporters don’t attend Trump rallies. But if they did, they would be yelling “We hate you.”
Is hate enough to win? The politics of hate is closely connected to the politics of identity.
The Democratic Party has a long history of race baiting as elections draw near. No, Trayvon Martin was not killed by a white assailant with an animus toward blacks. No, Michael Brown did not say “hands up, don’t shoot.” No, George Bush did not side with the racists who chained James Byrd to a pickup truck and dragged him to his death
But if you are an African American, you have probably heard these myths repeated time and again – on black radio, on black TV, and perhaps even in church. They are repeated often at election time. Hillary Clinton even had the mothers of Martin and Brown sitting on the stage with her at the national convention when she was nominated to be the Democratic candidate for president.
No, Donald Trump did not say white supremacists are good people. But that doesn’t stop the latest message conveyed by the hatemongers: If Donald Trump and the Republicans have their way, you could end up like George Floyd.
All this rhetoric has one and only one purpose: to make black voters angry enough to vote for Democrats.
And it has one very sad side effect. It completely distracts us from a rational look at public policies that need change.
Consider two statements:
There is systemic racism.
There are public policies that systematically harm low-income minorities.
The first statement is false. The second statement is true.
Low-income black families in inner cities all too often must send their children to the worst schools. They tend to live in the worst housing. They tend to receive the worst city services. They are subject to the worst environmental harms.
Yet, as Donald Trump has repeatedly reminded everyone, almost all these cities are run by Democrats. Often by black Democrats. The idea that black city managers are harming fellow blacks because they are racist is simply not credible.
Here is what is true. Liberal Democrats believe in special interest government. Their whole approach to politics is based on it. The idea is that each interest group agrees to support the outcome as a whole so long as the group receives benefits that are especially important to it.
Here is what that means in practice. In return for support of the teachers’ union, the political leaders agree not to fire bad teachers. In return for the support of the police union, the leaders agree not to fire bad cops.
Agreeing to pay higher salaries is hard. Money is scarce. Budgets are tight. But it’s easy not to fire bad apples. Well, it’s easy unless a mishap gets on national TV.
Other policies follow the same pattern. The reason why California has the highest homeless population in the country is because liberals in San Francisco and other California cities want zoning laws that protect their wealthy enclaves from inexpensive housing that threatens to arise next door.
The reason why environmental externalities are not evenly spread throughout the city is because the wealthy liberals have more influence over public decisions than low-income blacks.
No one sets out to harm poor people. Politicians are merely pursuing their own interests. Inner-city minorities get the short end of the stick because they are the least influential special interest around.
In the current race, Donald Trump is approaching black voters with a different message: school choice, safe neighborhoods, enterprise zones, liberating the job market, etc. This message is focused on public policies, not on race-baiting rhetoric.
In fact, Trump is the first Republican candidate in modern times to seriously compete for black votes at all. Will that strategy work? We’ll see.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2020/10/31/can-hate-win-an-election-n2579104
Trump’s Growth In Support Among Minorities Destroys Racism NarrativeLiberals are tying themselves in knots trying to explain President Trump’s growing popularity among Black and Hispanic voters.
The left is heavily invested in the narrative it has constructed of Donald Trump as an unrepentant “white nationalist” whose supposedly “racist” rhetoric is driving minorities away from the Republican Party in droves. The president’s critics have repeated this lie so many times that they’ve actually started to believe it — which is making for some highly amusing logical contortions as they try to navigate their own cognitive dissonance.
At first, all they had to do was dismiss the accuracy of polls showing that President Trump has been steadily gaining support in both the Black and Latino communities. But the phenomenon didn’t disappear, and with no time left to reverse the trends, liberals have begun to acknowledge that “In the Trump era, the U.S. electorate has become less divided by race.”
This directly contradicts one of the central articles of faith within today’s Democratic Party. Based on the presupposition that Donald Trump is the most openly racist politician in living memory, common sense dictates that conservative-leaning non-white voters should be fleeing the GOP in droves, disgusted by the president’s alleged appeals to “white supremacy” and “xenophobia.” Meanwhile, the white voters whom Trump is supposed to be wooing with his “divisive” rhetoric are actually shifting toward the Democrats.
As Nate Cohn observes in The New York Times, “The decrease in racial polarization defies the expectations of many analysts, who believed a campaign focused on appeals to issues like Black Lives Matter or ‘law and order’ would do the opposite.”
“So what gives?” the Democrats have begun asking themselves. Their unwillingness to let go of the “racist Trump” fantasy is leading them to some rather ridiculous conclusions.
The consensus seems to be that President Trump’s efforts to divide the country along racial lines have simply been a spectacular failure — the dolt!
“His appeals to white nationalism haven’t worked with most white voters,” The New York Times declares in its October 30 morning briefing newsletter. “But Trump’s white nationalism hasn’t driven away many voters of color who didn’t already oppose him. Instead, his confrontational style and tough talk on crime and national security seem to have appealed to some Latino and Black voters.”
This has the advantage of reassuring liberals of their own superiority while explaining away the president’s popularity among non-white voters as a product of the authoritarian inclinations of some Blacks and Hispanics — a line of reasoning that is uncomfortably close to the racist “Uncle Tom” attacks that self-styled “progressives” have long used against conservatives of color.
The problem with this explanation — apart from its being profoundly incorrect — is that it studiously overlooks the real reason for Donald Trump’s growing appeal to minorities.
Over the course of his first term, President Trump has consistently embraced and implemented policies designed to uplift and empower Americans who had previously been forgotten by the political establishment — a category that specifically includes Blacks and Hispanics.
In defiance of influential members of his own party, for instance, the president secured a bipartisan majority in Congress to pass the FIRST STEP Act, effecting the most momentous reform to America’s criminal justice system in a generation. The legislation reversed some of the most discriminatory policies that had been implemented in the 1980s and ‘90s, recommitted the federal prison system to rehabilitation, and released thousands of deserving inmates — the overwhelming majority of them Black — who had been serving excessive sentences for non-violent crimes.
The Trump administration also engineered a broad-based economic boom that greatly improved the prospects of minorities, achieving all-time lows in the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic Americans. The “Opportunity Zones” initiative created by the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, moreover, is promoting long-term prosperity in economically distressed communities all over the country, driving massive amounts of private investment to struggling neighborhoods that are disproportionately home to Americans of color.
More recently, the president has outlined his plans to build on that success during his second term, releasing the “Platinum Plan” for Black Americans and the “American Dream Plan” for Hispanic Americans.
The left’s portrayal of President Trump is a caricature, but liberals treat it like a portrait. Their inability to comprehend why Blacks and Hispanics are increasingly embracing Donald Trump’s vision and agenda for American Greatness is the direct and inevitable result of the left’s devotion to its own inaccurate narrative.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment