Listen to this article
I think that by now, it is painfully obvious to all but the most myopic that the New York Times represents the embodiment of fake news. In fact, in this era when false and misleading, partisan leftist propaganda is disseminated with dizzying regularity, it is not a stretch to argue that the New York Times represents the mother of all fake news. It is also fair to characterize the New York Times as a leftist blog akin to Mother Jones or Buzzfeed, rather than a legitimate, newsworthy paper.
Several recent incidents plaguing this troubled paper highlight this unfortunate development. Recently, the New York Times published an article stating that “former President George W. Bush won’t support the re-election of [Donald] Trump,” and cited “people familiar with [his] thinking.” There is no indication that the journalist responsible for authoring this drivel made any effort to corroborate the claim with Bush. In fact, Freddy Ford, a spokesman for Bush, said the report was simply not true and characterized it as “completely made up.”
On June 5, 2020, a Rasmussen daily tracking poll showed that black likely voter approval of Trump was at over 40 percent. Rasmussen is a serious, well-respected public opinion polling source and the June 5th polling data, even if considered an outlier, is a significant news story considering historic black voting patterns. In 2016, Trump garnered only 8 percent of the black vote and still won. If this recent Rasmussen polling is accurate, it bodes poorly for Democratic chances to reclaim the White House in 2020. Yet this newsworthy development failed to grace the pages of the Gray Lady. The reason is obvious: the New York Times is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and negative polling data that runs counter to the narrative the New York Times wishes to present is all but ignored and censored. Omission of newsworthy events due to political considerations is just as malignant as publication of false facts, and in any event, that strategy worked out poorly for the so-called establishment media in 2016.
Again in June 2020, the New York Times announced that its Editorial Page Editor James Bennet was resigning. The reason: Bennet had the gall to publish an op-ed piece written by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) in which Cotton “called for using military force as a backup—only if police are overwhelmed—to stop riots, not to be used against protesters.” Cotton’s op-ed piece proved to be too much for the cancel culture mob, which called for heads to roll. Times staff members were in open revolt, claiming that Cotton’s op-ed piece endangered black staff. Some refrained from showing up to work in protest. New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and his editorial board originally defended their decision to publish the piece but pressure from the “Woke,” group-think mob proved too much to bear for the feckless decision-makers at the Times. Sulzberger bent the knee and subsequently characterized the publication of the op-ed as a “significant breakdown in our editing processes, not the first we’ve experienced in recent years…”
Sulzberger is actually correct on at least one point. The New York Times has frequently experienced significant breakdowns in its editing processes. The Times has in the past allowed the likes of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Max Blumenthal and Marwan Barghouti, among others, to grace its op-ed pages without any negative repercussion.
Erdoğan is among the most malevolent, anti-Semitic tyrants to rule Turkey in recent memory and he’s arguably the most anti-Semitic leader in the Muslim world. He is a peddler of numerous anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and routinely denies due process to political opponents. Turkey under Erdoğan holds the dubious distinction of imprisoning more journalists than any other nation on the planet. Turkish journalists and political dissidents, including Kurds, have been imprisoned for contrived crimes such as “insulting the president.”
Max Blumenthal is the consummate anti-Semite, whose works have been featured by neo-Nazi and Hezbollah affiliated blogs. The Simon Wiesenthal Center characterized him as an anti-Semite and his comments earned him a spot in the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s “Top 10” list of anti-Semitic slurs. Frazier Glenn Miller, the KKK murderer who massacred three people at two separate Jewish community centers in Overland Park, Kansas, cited Blumenthal’s comments with approval. The dossier on Blumenthal can fill dozens of pages but you got the picture.
Marwan Barghouti is a convicted serial murderer. He was convicted of five counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. In a brief op-ed bio, the New York Times described him as “a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian,” while glaringly failing to note his murder convictions. Outrage on the deceptive op-ed piece produced instant backlash prompting the dishonest editorial board to acknowledge Barghouti’s murder convictions in a subsequent corrected version of the op-ed piece.
In 2019, the New York Times featured a cartoon on its editorial page depicting a blind Trump wearing a yarmulke being led by a leashed dog bearing the face of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A Star of David dangles from Netanyahu’s neck. The New York Times was subsequently forced to apologize but only after enduring a storm of criticism.
To my knowledge, no senior member of the New York Times editorial board resigned over featuring anti-Semitic cartoons or hosting op-eds from assorted tyrants, murderers and Jew haters. Yet a respected United States Senator, who’s responsible for setting U.S. policy and enacting its laws, manages to garner the invective of a hateful New York Times mob simply because he had the temerity to demand an end to looting and called for military force as a backup—only if police are overwhelmed. Sadly, the New York Times has morphed into an irredeemably flawed propaganda outlet and is beyond reformation.
NY Times Finally Admits It Lied About Russia Collusion Hoax
Many of those who mention fake news are dismissed in the popular culture as paranoid or “far-right.” That couldn’t be further from the truth. Those who say our establishment liberal media is fake are just reporting the simple facts.
The irony is even the fake news itself is now admitting it’s fake news. So many huge stories reported by big outlets and cable stations have turned out to be false.
Now, a few are trying to save their remaining shreds of credibility by admitting they lied about many things. The latest to line up and eat humble pie is the New York Times.
Finally admitting what we all already know, the NY Times just recently admitted it lied about the Russian collusion hoax. If you recall, the hoax was launched off a report by a spy called Christopher Steele.
It was mainly based on the fake claims of a man called Igor Danchenko, who has since been arrested. Basically, it planted a bunch of disinformation and lies in a report in order to humiliate and trash Trump’s chance at becoming president.
The report failed, but the liberal media (including the NY Times) continued to report on it and take it seriously for years. Now, the NY Times is finally just admitting it was wrong. The truth is even worse, of course. It wasn’t just wrong, it intentionally lied in order to try to smear Trump.
The Times is Still Only Telling Part of the Truth
The reason the NY Times admitted they were wrong is it couldn’t be avoided. They were backed in a corner because Danchenko had been arrested for his lies.
As usual, the Clinton machine is discarding someone who ended up not being useful to it. The Clinton machine is sacrificing careers and reputations as they continue to grasp at power and influence.
Now that Dachenko is facing the music for his fraudulent testimony, the Times has admitted it “turned out” the Russia story was just Democrat opposition research. In other words, they’re admitting it was a hatchet job.
They neglect to mention specifically they repeated the lies for literally years and tore up the foundations of the country to try to push their vile leftist ideology but, you know, details..
The Truth of the Matter
The story on Russia, Trump, urination, and all of it didn’t “turn out” to be untrue. Conservatives and anyone with common sense knew it was untrue as soon as it was released.
The stupidity of trying so hard to sink Trump is, I would argue, part of why he ended up getting elected. Many voters realized somebody who was so hated by the establishment had to have been doing something right.
NY Times Finally Admits It Lied About the “Caliphate”
The core of The New York Times‘s hit 2018 podcast series Caliphate was retracted after the fake news outlet discovered that the man it had relied upon for the program’s narrative is not a reliable source of truth.
The Times has already reassigned Rukmini Callimachi, its star terrorism reporter, to a different beat, and Shehroze Chaudhry, the alleged terrorism expert who told his story through Caliphate, is currently facing criminal charges in a federal court in Ontario for allegedly perpetrating a terrorism hoax.
“We fell in love with the fact that we had gotten a member of ISIS who would describe his life in the caliphate and would describe his crimes,” Times executive editor Dean Baquet told NPR.
“I think we were so in love with it that when we saw evidence that maybe he was a fabulist, when we saw evidence that he was making some of it up, we didn’t listen hard enough.”
As it turns out, Chaudhry may not have ever joined the Islamic State. He also may not have been an executioner for the extremist group has he claimed to the Times.
Even so, Chaudhry’s tales captivated the listening audience so much that the Caliphate series was featured at the South by Southwest Conference in Austin, Tex., in March 2018.
“Caliphate represents the modern New York Times,” announced Sam Dolnick, an assistant managing editor, about the project.
“It’s ambitious, rigorous, hard-nosed reporting combined with first-rate digital storytelling. We’re taking our audience to dangerous places they have never been, and we’re doing it with more transparency than we ever have before.”
More related news about mainstream media deception can be found at Faked.news.
This Is Just More Proof That They Cannot Be Trusted
Almost immediately after the program was launched, Caliphate started receiving awards and other acclaim, not to mention a slew of new listeners who paid to hear it. Callimachi launched into the journalistic stratosphere, while Chaudhry, speaking under the pseudonym of Abu Huzayfah, captivated the audience with stories about the atrocities he supposedly witnessed in Syria as a member of ISIS.
“He gave us a gift with the story,” Callimachi told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in May 2018. “It’s an eye-opening account of his passage through the Islamic State.”
Prior to the official release of the podcast, Chaudhry had apparently told Canadian news outlets that he had, in fact, traveled to Syria in 2014 to join ISIS. However, he denied playing any role in the killings.
To the Times, though, Chaudhry had somehow admitted to conducting executions, showing a serious error in judgment and accuracy. Chaudhry did, however, claim during one episode of Caliphate that he killed two civilians during an uproar, which he later denied.
It was ultimately determined that Chaudhry could not be trusted, but it was already too late: Caliphate had become a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and had also won a Peabody award, which is one of the highest distinctions in broadcast journalism.
The Times had attempted to lay low on Chaudhry’s story until it could do so no longer this past fall, which is when Chaudhry was arrested. Canadian officials charged him with lying about his participation in terrorist activities.
Caliphate also underwent an investigative review, which ultimately determined that Callimachi and her editors had repeatedly failed to push hard enough to verify Chaudhry’s claims.
“They came back and said, ‘If you look at the guy’s story, there is not enough powerful evidence that he was who he claimed to be for us to justify that story,” Baquet admitted.
The Trust Is Gone
I can’t say I’ve ever fully trusted the Times to be accurate, but until a couple years ago I generally felt fairly confident that even if a story was slanted in perspective, the facts that were reported were basically accurate. Not anymore.
For example, here is the Times last year, in a news story on the front page (and linked here to the Baltimore Sun to evade a paywall): “For months, Republicans have used last summer’s protests as a political catchall, highlighting isolated instances of property destruction and calls to defund the police to motivate their base in November.” (emphasis added)
As has been noted in the past, the property losses from the riots and looting in the summer of 2020 were on a par with the Los Angeles riots of 1992 and the totality of the 1960s urban riots. They included nightly riots in Portland, the destruction of a several blocks of Minneapolis, the establishment of a lawless anarchist zone for twenty-three days in Seattle, and riots in cities all over the country. David Bernstein from Reason was in Omaha last summer, and was surprised to find that the downtown was full of boarded-up shops whose windows had been smashed. A good friend of his from Albany, NY was just discussed property destruction and looting there. I mention these because they did not make the national news, but there are many other examples from New York to Los Angeles.
In short, if I read this article in the Times and believed it, I would think there were just a few isolated incidents where property was destroyed last summer, and I wouldn’t even know who undertook the destruction. If the Times had tried to convey the facts, it would have instead stated something like that the Republicans highlighted “the most destructive riots in decades, causing various levels of chaos and destruction in cities across the country, that grew out of the protests, mostly peaceful, over George Floyd’s death.”
In any event, the fact that I could read an article like this one and wind up *less* informed than I was when I started is why I don’t trust the Times anymore. I was hoping that once Trump was out of the way, the Times’ reporters and editors would no longer feel to skew their coverage for fear of helping Trump the way their coverage of Clinton’s emails in 2016 may have helped him, but it is now clear that this is an indefinite change for the worse.