Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
TW
The NY Times Finally Admits Itís Just A Democrat Super PAC
Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:49am
146.7.87.71

While most on the left would never admit and many would even deny such, anyone paying attention easily recognized the obvious about the NY Times and most of the left-wing dominated media.

There are plenty of buffoons that have always supported these organizations because they consider them to be highly intelligent and therefore naturally correct in most of their media efforts. That the Times and other media outlets were engaged in a right, fitting, and proper course of action in their warped minds. A mission from god, if you will.

You might even say they have a somewhat bizarre superiority complex in thinking that most of the world's scientists and college professors are liberals because they are so damned smart, so educated, and therefore so absolutely and undeniably correct.

While I will concede these people are above average in intelligence, that they have advanced learning in very specific disciplines, that by no means makes them advanced thinkers as far as other disciplines in the world are concerned. An astrophysicist is not necessarily an expert in global politics anymore than a women's studies professor is an expert in global climate change. Or an English and Journalism major is an expert on whatever subjects they are writing about in the news media. Many times they are quite ignorant on those subjects. Yet there's an individual that visits this board, that essentially expresses such beliefs in their intellectual superiority over most other's.

Buckley was well-acquainted with the halls of academia.




The New York Times Finally Admits Itís Just A Democrat Super PAC

Political advocacy is not political discourse.
November 29, 2017 By David Harsanyi

Journalists will often complain that readers donít properly understand the distinction between editorialists and reporters. To be fair, itís often quite difficult to tell. Thatís not only because of bias in coverage or because the Internet has largely wiped away the compartmentalization of the traditional paper, but because reporters now regularly give their opinions on TV, write ďanalysisĒ pieces, and make their ideological preferences clear on social media. Many news outlets ó The Daily Beast, BuzzFeed, etc. ó openly report from a left-wing perspective.

Iím not sure if this kind of transparency is necessarily a bad thing, but whatever the case, an editorial board is still run separately from the newspaper. It offers arguments regarding public policy and culture. Ideally, it publishes op-ed columns by an array of voices with varying points of view, occasionally even challenging its readers. When I was a member of an editorial board, our mission, at least as I saw it, was to offer rigorous, good-faith arguments for whatever point of view we were taking. I never once consulted anyone in the newsroom.

In his botched sting on The Washington Post this week, for instance, James OíKeefe demonstrated just how easy it is to either confuse the editorial board with the newsroom or to manipulate readers to confuse them. At some point, however, it also becomes the paperís fault, as well. What happens when an editorial board goes beyond arguing for liberal positions and debating policy to actively politicking for one party? Thereís a big difference between political discourse and partisan activism.

This week, The New York Times editorial board took over the paperís opinion Twitter account, which has around 650,000 followers, ďto urge the Senate to reject a tax bill that hurts the middle class & the nationís fiscal health.Ē By urging the Senate, it meant sending out the phone number of moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins and imploring followers to call her. In others words, the board was indistinguishable from any of the well-funded partisan groups it whines about in editorials all the time.

Perhaps Iím forgetting instances of similar politicking, but I donít think Iíve ever seen a major newspaper engage in the kind of partisan activism The New York Times is involved in right nowónot even on an editorial page. The Timesí editorial board isnít saying, ďBoy, that Republican bill is going to kill children,Ē itís imploring people on social media ó most of whom donít even subscribe to their paper or live in Maine ó to inundate a senator with calls to sink a tax reform they dislike. (Itís worth pointing out that most of the hyperbolic contentions the board makes regarding the bill are untrue or misleading, but thatís another story.)

The average news consumer doesnít care about the infrastructure of a news organization. When they see a media giant engaged in naked partisan campaigning, it confirms all their well-worn suspicions. You can grouse all day long about readersí inability to comprehend the internal divide, but how could a Republican trust The New York Timesí coverage of a tax bill after watching the same paper not merely editorialize against it, but run an ad that could have come from any of the proxies of the Democratic Party?

Maybe this is just a more honest way to do business. The fact is, itís highly unlikely that The New York Times cares about enticing conservatives anymore. Like many others, the Timesí board likely feels a moral obligation to act because they see everything Republicans engage in as an apocalyptic event. So, like political norms, journalistic ones fall every day on both sides.

What makes this kind of activism (which is likely to be ineffective, anyway) particularly hypocritical and distasteful, though, is that the Times has long argued in favor of empowering the government to shut down corporations ó just like them ó that engage in campaigning by overturning the First Amendment via Citizens United. This is worth remembering as the board turns into the equivalent of a super PAC.


Read more here: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/29/new-york-times-democrat-super-pac/#.Wh8doVViCaw.twitter

  • Night Tweets..... ~ Deanna, Wed Nov 29 9:50pm
    Dinesh DíSouzaÖÖÖ23m More Iím sure Matt Lauerís really puzzled his support for abortion & gay rights hasnít immunized him on the sexual harassment front Juanita BroderickÖÖ4h More Andy Lack just... more
    • The NY Times Finally Admits Itís Just A Democrat Super PAC ~ TW, Thu Nov 30 8:49am
      • Amen!!! ~ Deanna, Thu Nov 30 9:28am
        To all that you say....including Wm. Buckley!!! That IS reality!! :)
Click here to receive daily updates