Archive for the ‘The Media’ Category

NBC News Colluded With a Foreign, Left-Wing Group in an Attempt to Ban The Federalist

Leftwing-owned American networks are teaming up with foreign leftwing groups in an effort to ban conservative websites.

They even bragged about it:



By Ben Domenech and Sean Davis at Wall Street Journal

NBC News attempted this week to use the power of Google to cancel our publication, the Federalist. The effort failed, but it should serve as a warning about the unchecked power of big tech companies, particularly when they can be manipulated by partisans, including partisan journalists.

On Monday we received a request for comment through our general media email account from NBC reporter Adele-Momoko Fraser. The message asserted that Google had demonetized our site—preventing us from earning money through Google ads—for violating its rules.

On Tuesday, NBC published an article claiming that Google had made a formal decision to demonetize the Federalist, that we had been formally warned that we were in violation, and that our content—specifically, articles criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and media coverage of recent riots—was a violation of Google’s rules.

Google subsequently sent a statement to NBC saying all these claims were false. The network updated but hasn’t retracted the story. Ms. Fraser, who works for an NBC division with the Orwellian name “Verification Center,” tweeted her story and expressing thanks for the “hard work and collaboration” of a London-based advocacy group, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which promptly issued a fundraising appeal based on its purported deplatforming of a conservative media organization.

Whatever the network or the center knew about Google and the Federalist, it was more than Google told us. Google never formally notified us that we had run afoul of any of its rules. Only when we sought guidance from Google about the NBC News story were we told that our comments section—which is run by a third party and isn’t monitored or moderated by us—violated its policies. We asked if adjusting the comments section would address the alleged rule violation and were told that it would. For now our comment section doesn’t appear on our site. We intend to bring it back.

NBC News colluded with a foreign left-wing group in an attempt to destroy us because it disagrees with our political commentary and media criticism. The episode illustrates how dangerous the combination of partisan media and monopolistic tech companies is to America. We survived the attack because our organization is well-known.

This is only the latest example of media outlets using social-media platforms to attack and destroy Americans who don’t kowtow to left-wing orthodoxy. Ask Brendan Eich, who was fired from a Silicon Valley job in 2014 for contributing to a referendum against same-sex marriage six years earlier, or Nicholas Sandmann, who at age 16 was labeled a bigot by journalists for CNN and other outlets for attending a pro-life rally in D.C. and politely staying silent while an adult berated him and his classmates.

These attacks target not only individuals but free speech itself.


Google censors and shadow bans conservative websites on a regular basis by manipulating search results.

It’s also important to note that Google has collaborated with the communist totalitarian regime in Beijing to oppress free speech in China.

The company arbitrarily uses censorship to squelch what it views as ‘bad behaviors’ such as  ‘venting’ for eroding ‘utopian’ belief in online free speech.

I no longer use Google as a browser or a search engine. I use Dissenter, Brave, Tor, and any other secure, non-tracking outlet on the internet. The best way to shut these Google fuckers down is to stop your patronage.

Twitter is just as bad. The head of “site integrity” is one of the worst bigots on Twitter. Twitter support is run by an antifa advocate who decides which user is a “nazi”. Conservatives are routinely censored and banned while the leftwing lunatic fringe, racist minorities, and muzzie extremists get a pass. Twitter is run by Dem donors and activists. As long as Jack Dorsey in charge, don’t expect that to change.

Facebook’s new censorship squad includes a Muslim Brotherhood activist. Which is really strange because Zuckerberg is Jewish. Death threats are okay as long as the targets are people Facebook hates. Speaking of hate, the site has concocted a series of “signals” that it uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform. Conservative sites have been suspended over Zuckerberg’s political preferences, but leftie radicalsmuzzie terrorists and their mouthpieces, and videos demonstrating adult sex acts to kids, are relatively unscathed. Zuck has banded together with Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube to work on the creation of a global censorship database. The objective is to censor content on their platforms more efficiently. The database has a complete lack of transparency and accountability.

Only a small circle of company insiders know what’s in it.




Related posts:

Leftwing Rolling Stone Editor Has a Moment of Clarity: ‘The American Left Has Lost Its Mind’

PJ Media

Rolling Stone magazine is a liberal rag, and editor Matt Taibbi is unquestionably a liberal. And yet, by some miracle, Taibbi has seen the light and isn’t afraid to point out what is so clearly obvious to conservatives. “It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact, but the American left has lost its mind,” Taibbi wrote. “It’s become a cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.”

“The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation,” Taibbi continued.

“They’ve conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out thoughtcrime, and it’s established now that anything can be an offense, from a UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” out loud to a data scientist fired* from a research firm for — get this — retweeting an academic study suggesting nonviolent protests may be more politically effective than violent ones!”

Taibbi then examined what’s been happening within the media itself. “By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who’d made politically ‘problematic’ editorial or social media decisions.” Taibbi lamented at the Intercept writer Lee Fang being denounced as a racist for daring to ask if a black life only matters when a white man takes it. The outrage that followed forced Fang to make a public apology.

Taibbi’s acknowledgment of the collective insanity of the left is refreshing but misses a major point. This kind of outrage politics is not new or limited to the Black Lives Matter movement. The right has been repeatedly targeted by the outrage mob for years—decades, actually. Taibbi’s concern seems to be rooted in his fear of a liberal circular firing squad, and the casualties among the left because of the outrage mob. Where has Taibbi been all these years when conservatives were branded racist for opposing racial quotas and taxpayer-funded abortion. Where was Taibbi when Republican support for Voter ID was was likened to Jim Crow laws? Or 2007 onward when Republican opposition to Barack Obama was branded racist by default? How many years now have black Republicans been dismissed as “Uncle Toms” and token blacks?

Should Taibbi really be surprised that eventually, this racial virtue signaling would result in casualties on the left? It was inevitable that the hunters would ultimately become the hunted when the left became so consumed with their own self-proclaimed righteousness that they’d compete with each other for who won the medal for the most un-racist.


More background on Taibbi:

Taibbi’s infamous book, The eXile: Sex, Drugs and Libel In the New Russia,  describes his delight in exploiting Russian women:

“You’re always trying to force Masha and Sveta under the table to give you blow jobs. It’s not funny. They don’t think it’s funny,” Kara complained. “But… it is funny,” Matt said. We have been pretty rough on our girls. We’d ask our Russian staff to flash their asses or breasts for us. We’d tell them that if they wanted to keep their jobs, they’d have to perform unprotected anal sex with us. Nearly every day, we asked our female staff if they approved of anal sex. That was a fixation of ours. ‘Can I fuck you in the ass? Huh? I mean, without a rubber? Is that okay?’ It was all part of the fun.”


He’s also a smear merchant with ethical issues.

Tiabbi should include himself in his dissertation. He’s part and parcel of the bat-shit crazy American Left.



Related article:

When Journos Stop Believing in Debate

The main stream media is dominated by leftwing activists who dictate the terms of discourse in their forums.

Damon Linker at The Week

On Wednesday, when The New York Times published an op-ed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas in favor of using the military to “restore order” in the face of widespread urban rioting, the reaction of many journalists, including journalists working at the Times itself, was not to take issue with the argument. It was instead to take aim at the Times for publishing it.

This happens quite regularly now, usually in response to columns penned by the paper’s stable of conservative and centrist columnists. But the reaction to Cotton has been especially severe because of the astonishing events of the past week, with protests taking place in well over a hundred cities and towns, riots breaking out in numerous places, and the president taking precipitous actions in response to disorder in the nation’s capital. Given this context, many apparently believe that Cotton’s law-and-order column needs to be classified as dangerous — something pushing an idea beyond the pale that the Times should never have disseminated to the world — even though he clearly advocated the use of force only against rioters and looters and not against those engaging in peaceful protest.

This reaction tells us a lot — about how journalists view the Times and other mainstream media outlets, about how these journalists see their own role in the culture, and most of all, about how they think about ideas and their relation to politics.

It is now quite common among journalists to think of opinions not as arguments to be advanced, engaged with, and potentially refuted, but as a kind of viral propaganda with the power to convert readers to new holistic outlooks, much like the spread of a religious fervor during a revival.


Or as MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski says: “It’s our job to control what people think”.


……Newspapers, magazines, and websites aren’t neutral billboards (like social media) where everyone gets a chance to post their opinions unfiltered, with only the most minimum of oversight.

……critics presume that this power to disseminate and bestow legitimation upon opinions is enormous, amounting to far more than merely declaring the opinion worth taking seriously. They go much further to presume that publishing the opinion, releasing it into the world with the media outlet’s imprimatur attached, contributes decisively to its acceptance and affirmation by the nation’s citizenry. On this view, published ideas are a kind of ideological contagion. If the ideas are good, they can serve as a kind of vaccination against evil. But if they are bad, they function as an intellectual and moral pathogen that are better off being eradicated.


Case in point: The COVIDIOCY hysteria pushed by the media, its disdain for those who didn’t buy it, and its habit of throwing gasoline on the fire of race riots.  This time around, they blame the Floyd riots on “white supremacists”.  Antifa thugs are the only white contributors to the rampage, and they are not “supremacist”, they’re communist/anarchists.


This view of the press and the public is very different than the classically liberal notion of an active citizenry engaging productively with competing ideas in the public square, weighing evidence, and judging opinions responsibly and critically for themselves. Instead of this marketplace of ideas, we have a vision of public life marked by uniformity or only very narrowly divided over a set of pragmatic solutions to universally agreed upon problems. It’s a vision of public life in which, ideally, just about everyone agrees — and those who dare to dissent from this journalistically enforced consensus are treated as anathema.

But of course this is also a vision of public life without politics — which can be defined in part as the effort of a community divided by differing visions of the public good to find common ground through compromise and accommodation. Cotton and his critics disagree very strenuously about what the public good amounts to and what achieving it requires. Yet Cotton and those who agree with him are our fellow citizens. Denying their views a voice, ruling them out of bounds, doesn’t actually succeed in making them disappear — just as publishing them doesn’t imply they are correct. It implies only that they are worthy of discussion, debate, and, quite possibly, strenuous refutation.

But endorsing this classically liberal process of political disputation in public requires that one holds certain liberal convictions — in the capacity of reason to determine right from wrong and of one’s own side to prevail through the give and take of argument. It also requires a certain degree of modesty about the likelihood of any comprehensive moral and political view triumphing so decisively that competing views vanish or shrink to the furthest margins of a free society.

What we increasingly see among journalists today is the collapse of these core liberal convictions.


The new liberals are the fascists they warned us about.

Freedom of speech is an exclusive right reserved by Dems, according to leftie New Hampshire legislator, Cynthia Chase. She actually wants to pass a law that “will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they (conservatives) think they will find here.”

Her sentiment is shared by John (band-aid wound) Kerry,  Paul Krugman, the hag from San Fransisco, aka Nancy Pelosi, and Jay Rockefeller and Sheila Jackson-Lee.

It’s incredible but not surprising how the unhinged moonbats in the Democratic party and their media tools want to censor everyone but themselves.



Related article:

Related posts:

NY Times Opinion Editor Quits Over the Tom Cotton OpEd

Liberal snowflakes don’t like opposing viewpoints published in their paper.

Washinton Examiner

The editor of the New York Times editorial page has resigned after a controversial opinion piece written by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton caused major backlash.

The newspaper announced James Bennet’s resignation Sunday. It is effective immediately, the paper said.

New York Times employees and readers slammed the publication for running an opinion piece by Cotton calling for the federal government to send in the military to cities across the country to quell protests against police brutality. Staff members said the piece endangered the lives of their black colleagues.

Their black colleagues should be more concerned over their fellow blacks.

Eileen Murphy, a New York Times spokeswoman, blamed a “rushed editorial process” on the publication.

In other words, we let the truth slip without having the opportunity to censor.

“As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact checking operation and reducing the number of op-eds we publish,” Murphy said in a statement Thursday.

Speaking of “fact checking”, Gina Chérélus is a New York Times “fact-checker”:





In an email to staff on Sunday, publisher A.G. Sulzberger said he and Bennet “agreed that it would take a new team to lead the department through a period of considerable change.” But, he said, the publication will not back away from sharing ideas from across the political spectrum, “particularly those we disagree with.”


Bullshit. Anything that rag disagrees with is raked over the coals or dismissed entirely. They killed a story that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote, and the Obama campaign because it would have been “a game changer.”  They refused to cover a scandal involving one of their major shareholders. They refused to print an OpEd by former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. which called for fiscal responsibility and pay/promotion based on merit. What a concept.

Tom Cotton’s OpEd called for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 in order to protect communities from “nihilist criminals” rioting after Floyd’s death. In cases where there is total anarchy in the streets, it’s the duty of State Governors to deploy the National Guard to restore order and protect law-abiding citizens. 


“These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives,” Cotton wrote. “Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.”


It’s common for the president to deploy the National Guard to quell riots.


After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to place armed soldiers throughout U.S. airports. 

His father, President George H.W. Bush, used the insurrection law to send federal troops to Los Angeles in 1992 to restore order in the city after the riots that erupted after a jury acquitted police officers who were caught on camera beating up Rodney King.

The elder Bush also sent federal troops to St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, at the request of the territorial government, in 1989 to restore order from civil unrest after Hurricane Hugo. 

Among the most dramatic events occurred in 1957 when Arkansas’ Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus tried to face down Republican President Dwight Eisenhower over desegregation of schools. 

……Other cases in the 20th century would include notable presidents.  

In 1946, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, sent federal troops to act against striking railroad workers. 

……In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, ordered federal troops to stop race riots in 20 cities across the United States. The first of the riots occurred in Chicago, erupting in part from the post-war social tensions and competition over jobs.


The rampaging “protesters” have killed 17 people so far, including black lives that supposedly matter. Cities are in ruin. NY city has also sustained extensive damage but the fags at the NY Times get their panties in a wad over the suggestion that troops be deployed to stop it.



Related articles:

The Selective Apologies of the New York Times

The Federalist

Within hours of publishing a column by a U.S. senator conveying an opinion held by a majority of Americans, The New York Times’ staff erupted in an outrage, calling their employer’s decision to print a differing opinion, “surreal and horrifying.”

The editorial page editor James Bennet at first defended running counter viewpoints by those in policy positions, but by Thursday, the New York Times fully relented, issuing an apology and blaming a “rushed editorial process” for its decision to run the op-ed at all.

The op-ed, written by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., called on the federal government to “send in the troops” to quell violent urban uprisings following the death of George Floyd. Times employees put out a public statement through their union-excoriating management for its “irresponsible choice” in publishing the column and for “promoting hate.” One NYT reporter claimed the article “[put] all black Americans in danger.”

Cotton responded to the Times’ “mea culpa” Thursday night on Fox News. “I can tell you my op-ed doesn’t meet The New York Times standards,” he told host Martha MacCallum. “It far exceeds their standards, which are normally full of left-wing sophomoric drivel. And I find it amazing that in the last 24 hours, the editor of The New York Times and the publisher of The New York Times have both defended their decision to publish this op-ed, but in the face of the ‘woke’ mob, of ‘woke’ kids that are in their newsroom, they tucked tail and they ran.”

Cotton is right that the New York Times editorial pages previously have published opinions and authors of a much lower standard, even “drivel” you could say. And yet, many of their most “surreal,” “horrifying,” or “dangerous” opinions have never been revoked, apologized for, or led to the expansion of their “fact-checking operation” like Cotton’s mainstream conservative op-ed has. Here are just a few examples of past opinions the paper of record has yet to apologize for:

1. Pimping Pedophilia

2. Promoting Hitler

In 1941, the New York Times Magazine published an excerpt from “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler’s manifesto, under the title “The Art of Propaganda.”

3. Peddling Putin’s Propaganda

In 2014, Vladmir Putin graced the same pages as Cotton, offering what the Times considers “counter-arguments” from America’s enemies.

4. Publishing the Taliban

The Times gave many inches to a terrorist organization responsible for thousands of innocent American lives. No apology for that to its audience or to families who lost loved ones to the Taliban.

5. Running Interference for the No. 1 Jailer of Journalists

New York Times journalists often complain about President Donald Trump’s attacks on the free press despite never having jailed a single journalist. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, on the other hand, has imprisoned more journalists than any other leader on planet Earth, but he was encouraged to opine on the NYT op-ed page.

6. Praising Mao Zedong

In 2017, the opinion page ran an editorial praising Chinese communist and tyrant Mao Zedong, whose rule was responsible for famine and the deaths of millions of Chinese people.

7. Questioning Interracial Friendship

Since many NYT employees are questioning how the opinions they publish directly affect black Americans, they might also want to reflect on past op-eds that actually address race, instead of opinions like Cotton’s that simply address violent criminals.

Looks like many more “mea culpas” from The New York Times should be rolling in any minute.



Other execrable trash published in their rag that they never apologized for:

Hiring bigot Gina Chérélus as a New York Times “fact-checker”:

For hiring Sarah Jeong. She’s on their editorial board:


Hiring an anti-semite as a Senior Staff Editor:


NY Times reporter Natasha Lennard  didn’t just cover the violent Occupy protests, she also took part in planning and executing them.

Calling the Tea Party patriots “terrorists”:

For killing a story that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been “a game changer.”

For refusing to cover a story involving one of their major shareholders.

The New York Times is a prime example of why the media has no credibility.



Related posts:

%d bloggers like this: