web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Caught: NY Times Conveniently Runs Interference for Hillary Clinton in Her Battle With Tulsi Gabbard

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-pointing-harvard-620x317 Caught: NY Times Conveniently Runs Interference for Hillary Clinton in Her Battle With Tulsi Gabbard tulsi gabbard Social Media Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media journalism Hillary Clinton Hawaii Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

Hillary Clinton points to the audience as she is introduced at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., Friday, May 25, 2018. Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute honored Clinton with the 2018 Radcliffe Medal. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

Last week, Bonchie wrote about about how failed 2016 Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton told former Obama adviser David Plouffe in a podcast last week that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and 2016 Green party nominee Jill Stein were both “Russian assets.”

Prior to making that claim, Clinton also asserted that “I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” which was a clear reference to Gabbard even though she did not mention the 2020 presidential candidate by name during the podcast.

It was widely reported Friday morning by multiple journalists on Twitter, including the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, that the “they” Hillary referred to were the Russians. Here’s what Blake and others tweeted:

Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill was even asked about her comments to confirm it was Gabbard who she was referring to. He did:

In addition to an opinion piece on Hillary vs. Tulsi, the New York Times also published a straight news (heh) report about Clinton’s remarks and initially reported that Hillary was referring to the Russians as being the ones who were “grooming” Gabbard to be a third party candidate.

But sometime between last Friday and Tuesday, they changed their story, and now report it was “Republicans” Hillary meant, not the Russians. How do we know this? Through Merrill, in a series of tweets, the first two of which note the so-called error and correction:

Because I don’t trust anything that comes from Merrill or anyone else on Team Clinton, I searched for a transcript so I could read what she said in context. Politifact, thankfully, had it:

Plouffe: “But one of the reasons [Trump] was able to win is the third party vote.”

Clinton: “Right.”

Plouffe: “And what’s clear to me, you mentioned, you know, he’s going to just lie. … He’s going to say, whoever our nominee is, ‘will ban hamburgers and steaks and you can’t fly and infanticide’ and people believe this. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number. If he has to get 49 or even 49.5 in a bunch of…”

Clinton: “He can’t do that.”

Plouffe: “…which I don’t think he can… So he’s going to try and drive the people not to vote for him but just to say, ‘you know, you can’t vote for them either.’ And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can define a strategy, their key strategy right now.”

Clinton: “Well, I think there’s going to be two parts and I think it’s going to be the same as 2016: ‘Don’t vote for the other guy. You don’t like me? Don’t vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z or the other guy did such terrible things and I’m going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they’re on the dark web, and nobody can find them, but you’re going to see them and you’re going to see that person doing these horrible things.’”

“They’re also going to do third party again. And I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up. Which she might not, ’cause she’s also a Russian asset.”

Plouffe: (Inaudible)

Clinton: “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset, I mean, totally.

“And so, they know they can’t win without a third party candidate and, so, I don’t know who it’s going to be it but I will guarantee you they’ll have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

Understandably, it’s hard to tell whether Hillary is talking about Trump and Republicans or the Russians when she refers to “they” because she uses the terms interchangeably often, but it simply does not make sense that Merrill confirmed Friday she was talking about Russians grooming Gabbard but then rushed to Twitter a few days later to correct the record.

In fact, the “correction” is just a little too convenient for my liking. It’s almost as though it was a coordinated effort. Considering how closely the Clinton camp monitors the media, it is not outside the realm of possibility at all that they pitched a fit to the NYT to the point the paper changed it on their behalf.

Just for purposes of discussion, let’s say Hillary Clinton really was referring to Republicans as “grooming” Gabbard.

1) It’s still highly insulting to Gabbard. Even though she doesn’t view Republicans as the enemy, she’s also a proud Democrat and by suggesting Republicans were “grooming” her to be a third party candidate means Clinton thinks Gabbard, who served her country in Iraq, would sell out her party and what she stands for in order to give Trump the advantage in the general election.

2) Plus, Clinton, who is delusional enough to think Trump and Republicans colluded with the Russians in 2016, thinks they are still “working together” now to “steal” 2020. So by saying Republicans are “grooming” Gabbard, she’s saying Gabbard is working with people who allegedly are getting assistance from a foreign country to “steal” our elections.

The “correction” the paper made does not change the despicable nature of what she said.

3) Hillary Clinton unquestionably called Gabbbard a “Russian asset.” That’s just as disgusting.

The bottom line is that Democrats including Hillary Clinton have banged the “Russia” drum since 2016. The only difference now is that she’s implicating members of her own party in some supposed new Republican scheme to steal 2020.

Someone needs to stage an intervention with her. Seriously. This is just nuts.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Caught: NY Times Conveniently Runs Interference for Hillary Clinton in Her Battle With Tulsi Gabbard appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-pointing-harvard-300x153 Caught: NY Times Conveniently Runs Interference for Hillary Clinton in Her Battle With Tulsi Gabbard tulsi gabbard Social Media Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media journalism Hillary Clinton Hawaii Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NY Times reports on the ‘backlash’ to homelessness in California

Westlake Legal Group SF-homeless NY Times reports on the ‘backlash’ to homelessness in California The Blog NY Times homeless backlash

The NY Times published a story about homelessness in California today but the framing of the story is a bit odd. It’s headlined, “As Homelessness Surges in California, So Does a Backlash.” The rule for progressive outlets is always the same: If the story helps Democrats then it’s a story. If the story might help Republicans then the reaction to the story is the story. So here, instead of writing a straight piece about how the homeless are causing a rise in crime in San Francisco, you get a story about “backlash” in which the homeless are the victims. Here’s how it opens:

Insults like “financial parasites” and “bums” have been directed at them, not to mention rocks and pepper spray. Fences, potted plants and other barriers have been erected to keep them off sidewalks. Citizen patrols have been organized, vigilante style, to walk the streets and push them out.

California may pride itself on its commitment to tolerance and liberal values, but across the state, record levels of homelessness have spurred a backlash against those who live on the streets.

The subtext here is that even liberal, tolerant people are getting annoyed by the situation. A homeless activist in Los Angeles clarifies that even some who are “very left of center,” are unhappy:

“Some people who I’d put in the fed-up category, they’re not bad people,” he continued. “They would describe themselves as left of center, and sometimes very left of center, but at some point they reach the breaking point.”…

“I think those of us in the service-provider community always knew we weren’t going to solve the problem,” said Mr. Maceri of the People Concern. “But I think the expectation was we were going to make a significant dent. So on the one hand, the message is we have all these resources to quote-unquote solve this problem. And what the general public sees is, it’s not getting solved, it’s not getting better, it’s getting worse.”

He’s right about things not improving. The count of homeless people was up this year along the west coast despite cities like San Francisco spending hundreds of millions of dollars to combat it.

In addition to the public’s (accurate) sense that a lot of money is being spent with little result, there’s also the constant disinformation coming from professional homeless activists. As the LA Times pointed out recently, activists always downplay the degree to which this is largely a problem about mental health and drug abuse. As a result, people see behavior taking place in the streets that is rarely reflected by their representatives and often tut-tutted in newspapers. This creates a sense that no one is addressing the problem as it actually exists for homeowners and businesses. To the Times’ credit, some of that frustration does get voiced by Paneez Kosarian. Kosarian made news in August after she was attacked by a deranged homeless man with a history of drug abuse.

Ms. Kosarian and others cite city estimates that half of the homeless people in San Francisco have substance abuse issues, and say the crisis is being misdiagnosed as purely a lack of housing. Mayor London Breed announced this month that San Francisco would begin enforcing a state law that makes it easier to force mentally ill people off the streets.

“This is definitely a more complicated definition than just homelessness,” Ms. Kosarian said. “Even during the daytime, I fear walking alone.”

The story also quotes property developer Gene Gorelick who is fed up with the crime:

Mr. Gorelik said he saw a connection between the 90 homeless encampments in Oakland and crime. His construction sites have been burglarized nine times, he said, and his car has been broken into twice.

A woman being attacked outside her apartment. A man’s car and businesses being broken into repeatedly. These are examples of the many other business owners and homeowners who have been robbed or had altercations with homeless people. That’s not to mention the feces in the street, the used drug needles in public parks, and public transportation and sidewalks that have become illegal campsites. Why is it necessary to frame all of this as part of a backlash instead of a story of people being victimized by crime associated with the homeless?

As is often the case these days, there is a divide between the comments recommended by Times readers and the ones recommended by Times’ staff. Here’s the top comment recommended by readers:

This article misses a key distinction that we Californians make. Californians have all the empathy in the world for those who we call the homeless – those who lost their homes to foreclosure, disasters, layoffs, or runaway medical expenses. Many have jobs, but can’t muster thousands of dollars of cash for a security deposit. They are people who want to get back on their feet, but can’t because of runaway housing prices. We want to do all we can to help these people get out of their cars and tents and back into a home.

Californians are fed up with vagrants, which are a completely different problem than the homeless. Vagrants actively seek to live outside the rules and confines of society to use drugs and alcohol. Many have mental illnesses that they are self-medicating – a treatment they choose over going into the system and using resources to stabilize and reintegrate. Californians are fed up with those who CHOOSE homelessness, even when offered services to help them get back on their feet. When the city or county clears our camps, they bring social workers to help enroll vagrants in services designed to get them in their feet. A great majority refuse, and move on to their next location. It is vagrants that Californians are done with and that we have no solution for, not the homeless.

Times’ staff selected a response to this comment but I’ll spare you.

The post NY Times reports on the ‘backlash’ to homelessness in California appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group SF-homeless-300x159 NY Times reports on the ‘backlash’ to homelessness in California The Blog NY Times homeless backlash   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NYT Editorial Board Member Accidentally Provides Rationale for Why Trump Shouldn’t Cave to Media Mobs

Westlake Legal Group ny-times-620x349 NYT Editorial Board Member Accidentally Provides Rationale for Why Trump Shouldn’t Cave to Media Mobs washington D.C. Social Media republicans progressives Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Florida Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception

On Monday, Brad Slager wrote about the controversial video that aired at a recent gathering of President Trump’s supporters at a Trump resort in Miami and how the mainstream media and Democrats erupted in outrage over it.

Through his press secretary Stephanie Grisham, we learned Trump “strongly condemns” the doctored video that shows Trump shooting members of the media, even though he wasn’t responsible for creating it, having it created, sharing it, or in any other way promoting it.

But that wasn’t enough for media firefighters like New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay, who stated Monday afternoon that it was hard to believe he didn’t actually see the video and enjoy what he saw:

Gay, who got blasted by Sen. Ted Cruz in July over after she acted stupidly by telling the Senator that “Frederick Douglass’ name … has no business in your mouth”, was not the only member of the mainstream media who blamed Trump for a video he had nothing to do with. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin also took to the airwaves, anded demand Trump issue a statement himself condemning the video rather than through his press secretary.

Note below that CNN labeled the video a “Trump video” even though, again, Trump had nothing to do with its creation or dissemination:

This just goes to show you’re danged if you do and danged if you don’t if you’re a Republican. Trump condemned the video before he even saw it, according to his press secretary, but that wasn’t enough for the same mainstream media who have worked in concert with Democrats to amplify calls for his impeachment since before he was even elected president.

Even had he condemned it directly it still wouldn’t be enough for the media mobs, who would have spent days dissecting what he said to prove he didn’t really mean it, didn’t really own up to “his part” (though he had none as it relates to this video), and/or deliberately left out things that should have been said.

Republicans simply can’t win with the left wing media, which is why Trump doesn’t even bother trying.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post NYT Editorial Board Member Accidentally Provides Rationale for Why Trump Shouldn’t Cave to Media Mobs appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ny-times-300x169 NYT Editorial Board Member Accidentally Provides Rationale for Why Trump Shouldn’t Cave to Media Mobs washington D.C. Social Media republicans progressives Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Florida Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NY Times Opinion: It’s time to take a second look at ‘free speech’

Westlake Legal Group NY-Times NY Times Opinion: It’s time to take a second look at ‘free speech’ The Blog NY Times Free Speech First Amendment

The NY Times published an opinion piece today with the not-very-subtle title “Free Speech is Killing Us.” The subheading clarifies that this is going to be another rant about social media: “Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?” That last part is really what this is about. Author Andrew Marantz wants to explore solutions to the problem of free speech online. I’ll skip over most of the justifications and get right to those solutions, which seem to mostly revolve around new government efforts:

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act — the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

You can probably imagine what a national campaign for news literacy put together by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would look like. I think I’ll pass on that. A robust public media would, I guess be PBS and NPR on steroids. The BBC produces a lot of non-news programs. Would we somehow be better off if PBS were producing the next Marvel TV show? I’m not sure how that would help.

Marantz seems to envision the creation of a new government-funded social media site to compete with Facebook. Wouldn’t it be harder to deny free speech rights on such a platform given that it’s a taxpayer-funded project and therefore arguably subject to the First Amendment in ways Facebook is not? Could you even ban taxpayers from a taxpayer-funded social media site? I’m thinking that would be difficult to do.

The alternative he offers is for private companies to step up by banning more “inflammatory accounts.” Having exhausted his suggestions in a few paragraphs, Marantz then turns to his expert witness, a Berkeley professor named John A. Powell:

“We need to protect the rights of speakers,” John A. Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, “but what about protecting everyone else?” Mr. Powell was the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and he represented the Ku Klux Klan in federal court. “Racists should have rights,” he explained. “I also know, being black and having black relatives, what it means to have a cross burned on your lawn. It makes no sense for the law to be concerned about one and ignore the other.”

Mr. Powell, in other words, is a free-speech advocate but not a free-speech absolutist. Shortly before his tenure as legal director, he said, “when women complained about sexual harassment in the workplace, the A.C.L.U.’s response would be, ‘Sorry, nothing we can do. Harassment is speech.’ That looks ridiculous to us now, as it should.” He thinks that some aspects of our current First Amendment jurisprudence — blanket protections of hate speech, for example — will also seem ridiculous in retrospect.

Something about this sounded familiar to me. Looking back, I realized I’d written about a very similar piece once before, one which the same author had written for the New Yorker last year. That piece made almost the same argument and also featured John A. Powell as an expert arguing for more limits on speech:

“No one is disputing how the courts have ruled on this,” john a. powell, a Berkeley law professor with joint appointments in the departments of African-American Studies and Ethnic Studies, told me. “What I’m saying is that courts are often wrong.” Powell is tall, with a relaxed sartorial style, and his manner of speaking is soft and serenely confident. Before he became an academic, he was the national legal director of the A.C.L.U. “I represented the Ku Klux Klan when I was in that job,” he said. “My family was not pleased with me, but I said, ‘Look, they have First Amendment rights, too.’ So it’s not that I don’t understand or care deeply about free speech. But what would it look like if we cared just as deeply about equality? What if we weighed the two as conflicting values, instead of this false formalism where the right to speech is recognized but the harm caused by that speech is not?”

As I noted at the time, Powell is a believer in the idea that speech is harmful. He wrote this in 2017:

The more we recognize that certain kinds of speech can not only offend but can cause mental and physical harm, and that the harm can be lasting, the more we will be able to properly protect the rights of all—not just of people to speak, but also of their very existence and right to survive and thrive.

As we’ve seen on college campuses, this creates an incentive for adults to behave like fragile snowflakes who claim they will be permanently damaged by words they find offensive. This is how we get safe spaces. More to the point, these ideologues will quickly claim what they really need is for the entire campus to be a safe space.

There’s no arguing with this veto power over other people’s speech, no way to appeal it to reason. You can’t tell someone they aren’t harmed. It’s a personal declaration not subject to outside review. Once someone claims their “lived experience” makes your speech dangerous (to them or unnamed others), you won’t have the right to speak anymore.

Indeed, that’s always what these campus games are about: silencing whoever the far left disagrees with that day. Powell and Marantz can pretend that’s not where this winds up but only by ignoring lots of recent and compelling evidence to the contrary.

The post NY Times Opinion: It’s time to take a second look at ‘free speech’ appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group NY-Times-300x159 NY Times Opinion: It’s time to take a second look at ‘free speech’ The Blog NY Times Free Speech First Amendment   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sarah Jeong no longer employed by NY Times editorial board

Westlake Legal Group Sarah-Jeong Sarah Jeong no longer employed by NY Times editorial board The Blog Sarah Jeong NY Times

A couple of days after Sarah Jeong appeared to encourage NY Times readers to cancel their subscriptions, CNN is reporting that Jeong is not longer employed by the NY Times editorial board. According to the Times, Jeong made the decision to leave in August:

Oliver Darcy emails: Sarah Jeong is no longer a member of the NYT editorial board. A spokesperson for NYT told me Jeong is no longer an employee, but has shifted to being a contracted contributor for NYT Opinion. “Sarah decided to leave the editorial board in August,” said Kate Kingsbury, deputy editorial page editor, “but we’re glad to still have her journalism and insights around technology in our pages through her work as a contributor.”

In an emailed statement, Jeong said the change in role will allow her to “go back to reporting and writing long features while still being involved with NYT Opinion section on tech issues.” Jeong added, “The decision was hard because of the many wonderful colleagues I would have to leave behind, but I made the change so I can work on what I want to work on in the immediate moment.”

If that timeline is accurate, then the comments Jeong made on Twitter a couple of days ago about canceling subscriptions didn’t prompt her firing but may have included a reference to her freedom to say whatever she wants. Jeong was reacting to a surge of cancellations after the Times published details about the whistleblower who is the focus of Democrats’ current impeachment push:

I guess another thing Jeong has eschewed is a job at the NY Times editorial board. She must have a really high opinion of her own work to think it’s so important that she can’t buy a house or start a family. I mean, there may be some people whose work is too important for any compromise or distraction, I just wouldn’t have put her in that category. She’s basically a writer with an opinion about social media (she thinks it’s bad). For the record, Jeong claims she wasn’t encouraging people to cancel subscriptions in those tweets:

Jeong said it was not a “call to unsubscribe.” She told me, “I’m just weary of having my name and my work invoked as a reason to not boycott. A lot of people have done and continue to do great work at the Times. But if a reader has real, good-faith objections to certain editorial decisions, the fact that the paper has done great work doesn’t negate those objections.”

That sounds like to me she’s encouraging people to cancel or at least not to not cancel on her account.

Jeong has been controversial since she was hired last year. Even a surprising number of NY Times readers thought her anti-white people tweets should have disqualified from a position on the editorial board. I suspect there’s a lot more to this story but we won’t be hearing it until Jeong writes her memoirs.

The post Sarah Jeong no longer employed by NY Times editorial board appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Sarah-Jeong-300x159 Sarah Jeong no longer employed by NY Times editorial board The Blog Sarah Jeong NY Times   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Good Grief! NY Times reveals whistleblower is CIA and readers are furious

Westlake Legal Group NY-Times Good Grief! NY Times reveals whistleblower is CIA and readers are furious whistleblower The Blog NY Times

The NY Times is reporting the whistleblower who made the complaint about Trump’s call with Ukraine is a CIA agent who was on a detail to the White House:

The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.

The next section of the Times’ story is devoted to the back and forth over whether or not the Times should have published this information in the first place. The whistleblower’s attorney is not amused, telling the Times, “Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way.” That concern was echoed by others on Twitter:

He’s referring to Trump’s statement about how to deal with “spies.” But NY Times executive editor Dean Baquet responded the information was essential to establishing the whistleblower’s credibility. Unfortunately for him, lots of left-leaning Times readers aren’t buying that explanation:

I think he has a point and it’s one I’ve seen several people make. If the whistleblower were an anonymous source for the Times, they’d be bending over backward to protect him. Since he’s not, they’re outing him.

There are hundreds of more responses like this from unhappy progressives. But it’s not just social media where people are reacting stongly to the decision to publish this information. The Times is being dragged on its own site by commenters. Here’s a sample:

  • “I am stunned the paper would choose to do this. You just gave anyone who might choose to come forward to report a serious governmental wrongdoing ample reason to triple guess that choice.”
  • “No, NYT – don’t go there. Do not identify or help identify the WB”
  • “You, New York Times, have given enough detail for any amateur sleuth to find him. Would it hurt to wait a few weeks before releasing information that may imperil this American hero?”
  • “It is irresponsible of you to so specifically identify the whistleblower. I am disappointed in your editorial decision.”
  • “I understand the need to wanting to know more and complete information. But good grief, a person’s life could be on the line.”
  • “Why are you trying to out this patriot, instead of investigating the crimes of the president? Unbelievable.”
  • “Your actions are irresponsible.”
  • “What in the world are you thinking?”
  • “DO NOT OUT THIS HERO!”
  • “Great article. All that’s missing is where his kids go to school.”
  • “Reading this story makes me regret having cancelled my subscription. I’d like to be able to cancel it again.”

And on and on it goes. And I’m not cherry-picking those examples. I’d say the comments are 80 percent against the Times’ decision to publish in varying degrees, with most of the remainder of comments not taking a position either way. Only a handful of people appear to be standing up for the decision to publish.

The post Good Grief! NY Times reveals whistleblower is CIA and readers are furious appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group NY-Times-300x159 Good Grief! NY Times reveals whistleblower is CIA and readers are furious whistleblower The Blog NY Times   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course)

Westlake Legal Group brett-kavanaugh-hearing-SCREENSHOT-620x394 Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) Supreme Court Social Media SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism It Is Okay To Laugh Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

When last we left you, New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly were blaming the paper’s editorial staff for cutting out a crucial section of their weekend hit piece on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Pogrebin and Kelly have insisted that they included the exculpatory information which noted that the alleged victim of an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh has no recollection of it happening. The authors also allege that somehow during the editing process that information was was innocently removed.

Few people are buying it, which is quite possibly why Pogrebin shifted gears on the Twitter machine earlier today by pulling a tactic straight out of the leftist playbook: When all else fails, blame Fox News.

Here’s what Pogrebin tweeted:

Vox’s leading Democratic party shill Aaron Rupar asserted in the piece that Fox News has misleadingly “described changes the New York Times made to Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s story as a ‘correction’ at least a dozen times.”

Rupar then states that “there’s just one problem — the Times did not, in fact, ‘correct’ anything. To make a ‘correction’ to a story indicates something was factually wrong.”

The problem with Rupar’s piece and Pogrebin retweeting it is that Pogrebin herself has used the term “corrected” to describe the paper taking action to add the information to the story (h/t: Twitchy):

And as Jeryl Bier notes, by Vox’s own standards they label fixing the omission of relevant information from a news story as a … correction:

Regardless of how Pogrebin and Vox labeled the Times’ corrective actions, the whole debate is weak sauce, and a pathetic attempt at shifting the blame elsewhere for failures that can ultimately only be pinned on the two people who wrote the original piece and those who “proofed” it before it went to press:

Pogrebin and Kelly have shown no shame when it comes to the pretzels they twist themselves into to avoid blame for what happened. So their critics should, in turn, shown no mercy in their constructive criticisms. Fair is fair.

Westlake Legal Group giphy Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) Supreme Court Social Media SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism It Is Okay To Laugh Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group brett-kavanaugh-hearing-SCREENSHOT-300x191 Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) Supreme Court Social Media SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism It Is Okay To Laugh Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section

Westlake Legal Group nyt-building-620x348 ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations SCOTUS Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

The fallout from the New York Times “bombshell” report that wasn’t continues.

Vanity Fair reports that book writers Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly (who are also reporters at the paper) originally went to the news side of the paper to get their story published – but it was rejected:

Why did the Kavanaugh excerpt end up in the Review? People familiar with how things went down told me that Kelly and Pogrebin initially pitched their scoop to the news side, but the top editors ultimately felt that there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment (the type many lefties would have been salivating for). Instead, Pogrebin and Kelly were told that they could pitch the Review, which is entirely independent of the News department. I asked for clarification as to what about the story wasn’t News-pages-worthy, but the Times declined to comment, as did Kelly and Pogrebin. (A Times spokesperson did, however, point out that “it’s not unusual for Opinion or Sunday Review pieces to break news.”)

None of this makes any sense. Why would editors on the news side reject this story, but find it suitable for the Sunday Review side?

Elizabeth Vaughn wrote this morning that Pogrebin and Kelly said Monday night their original report did include the information about how the alleged victim had no recollection of the alleged sexual assault – but that the editors somehow unintentionally removed it during the editing process.

Neither of these stories about the differences in both the news and Sunday Review sides exonerate the New York Times from being guilty of journalistic malpractice (at the very least) by way of removing vital information from the piece before it went to press (assuming what Pogrebin and Kelly said was true), information that called the explosive allegation in to question.

But should we believe the authors were victims of an innocent editing mix-up? An interview Pogrebin gave this morning on WMAL makes the writers themselves look guilty, too:

In her WMAL interview this morning, Pogrebin repeatedly refers to the woman as a “victim.” This word choice is instructive about Pogrebin’s thought process. Calling her a victim would be begging the question if the woman claimed this status for herself. She would then be only an alleged victim. But she isn’t even that. She has made no claim to be a victim, yet Pogrebin describes her as one anyway. This is a case of a reporter overriding her reporting with her opinion. Pogrebin then impugns the woman by saying she was so drunk that her memory can’t be trusted. She also says that “everyone” at the party was massively drunk and that their memories are therefore unreliable.

Does she hear herself talking? If this is true, it means Max Stier was also drunk and his memories also can’t be trusted. (Someone should ask Pogrebin whether she was present at this party about which she knows so much.) By what journalistic standard does a reporter discount what is said by the person with the most direct and relevant experience of a matter — the woman in question at the Yale party — in favor of a drunken bystander?

Hmmm.

We know from past experiences that the paper operates from the Republicans / Orange Man Bad perspective, and to hell with standards. But even with that said, this seems especially egregious and intentional no matter how you look at it, and no matter who ultimately is found to be at fault.

(Hat tip: Twitchy)

Related –>> “Airplanes Took Aim”: NY Times Shamefully Goes The Ilhan Omar Route In Describing How 9/11 Happened

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nyt-building-300x168 ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations SCOTUS Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Authors of Kavanaugh hit piece backtrack after blaming editors for key omission: ‘We’re a team at the NY Times’

Westlake Legal Group View-authors Authors of Kavanaugh hit piece backtrack after blaming editors for key omission: ‘We’re a team at the NY Times’ The View The Blog NY Times Meghan McCain Brett Kavanaugh

There must have been some heated calls from the NY Times to the authors of a new book about Brett Kavanaugh last night. At least that’s what I imagine happened to generate this sudden change of heart this morning.

As Ed noted this morning, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, told Lawrence O’Donnell Monday night show that the omission of a key detail from their NY Times opinion piece wasn’t their fault. They had included the fact that a woman who allegedly encountered Kavanaugh naked at a drunken party told friends she had no memory of the incident, but the Times’ editors removed that key detail from the story.

As Ed pointed out this morning, that explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense given that authors have the final say about what makes it into print under their names. It sounded as if they were throwing the Times under the bus to save themselves.

Today, the Pogrebin and Kelly appeared on the View and were asked by Meghan McCain how this “vital fact” got left out.

“Thank you so much for the question and we’re eager to clear the air on this,” Kate Kelly said. She continued, “First of all, there was no desire to withhold important information from our readers. We have all of it in the book and the essay is an adaptation of the book that of course, we had to edit for length and clarity.

“During the editing process, there was an oversight and this key detail, about the fact that the woman herself has told friends she doesn’t remember it and has not wanted to talk about it, got cut. And it was an oversight and the Times adjusted it and we’re very sorry that it happened.”

Notice that Kelly says “we” had to edit and that the key detail “got cut” without assigning any specific blame.

“You also sort of threw the NY Times opinion board under the bus a little bit saying that they chose to omit it.” McCain pointed out. She added, “I’ve written opinion pieces in the NY Times. In my experience, I get the final say on what runs…So where was the disconnect there?”

“Well, we’re a team at the NY Times,” Kelly claimed. “We have processes in place. We wrote this. It was edited. There was back and forth as there always is. It’s kind of a team effort, frankly, to make sure everyone is comfortable with the final product and there was just an oversight here,” she added.

Co-host Sunny Hostin chimed in: “But you are the authors of the book, did you just miss it?”

“We first had it in the piece,” Robin Pogrebin said. She continued, “And so it’s about an editing process which is iterative. It has a lot of different drafts.” Pogrebin then repeated the claim that the sentence was removed when removing the alleged victim’s name from the piece but said, “In removing her name to kind of protect her and make sure we weren’t sending people to her door, we also took out the fact that she didn’t remember it.”

Hostin asked the obvious question: “Did you read it right before it went to print?”

“You know, I, we thought we had,” Porgrebin replied. She added, “And as soon as we realized this we corrected it and they wrote an editor’s note and they restored it.”

Mollie Hemingway, who has co-written her own book about the Kavanaugh confirmation, points out this is another change from what the authors claimed last night on MSNBC:

The video is below but it’s worth noting that the authors also apologized today on the View for another embarrassing mistake. It turns out they wrote a badly worded tweet which the Times later deleted and apologized for:

The Times was forced to apologize after a tweet from the @nytopinion account about the essay, stated: “Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn’t belong at Yale in the first place.”

The Times was forced to apologized over the tweet, which was about a separate sexual misconduct allegation involving Kavanaugh, calling it “clearly inappropriate and offensive.”

Pogrebin told “The View” that the tweet was not worded well and that it was an attempt to make a larger point around sexual misconduct.

“It was a misworded tweet, but what happens at the Times is the reporters are asked to draft tweets and we’re also asked to draft headlines. They don’t always get used, sent out, they often don’t.”

So, to sum this up, mistakes were made but we’re all a team at the NY Times!

Honestly, I would pay the full list price of the book for a recording of the angry calls these two must have gotten from the Times last night. If only they would do a deep dive on that topic.

The post Authors of Kavanaugh hit piece backtrack after blaming editors for key omission: ‘We’re a team at the NY Times’ appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group View-authors-300x159 Authors of Kavanaugh hit piece backtrack after blaming editors for key omission: ‘We’re a team at the NY Times’ The View The Blog NY Times Meghan McCain Brett Kavanaugh   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ted Cruz Destroys NY Times Over Kavanaugh Smear, Says It Confirms the Paper’s Bias and Political Agenda

Westlake Legal Group ted-cruz3-620x317 Ted Cruz Destroys NY Times Over Kavanaugh Smear, Says It Confirms the Paper’s Bias and Political Agenda washington D.C. Texas Ted Cruz Social Media SCOTUS republicans Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Congress Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks as FAA Acting Administrator Daniel Elwell, NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt, and DOT I.G. Calvin Scovel appear before a Senate Transportation subcommittee hearing on commercial airline safety, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, 3/27/19, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

As I wrote earlier today, the New York Times has been rightly taken to the woodshed the last two days after a thinly sourced hit piece they did over the weekend on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh fell apart once The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway scrutinized the piece and found a crucial point missing:

The paper issued a correction several hours after this was pointed out to them …

… but not before the damage was done, and not before numerous Democratic candidates for president jumped on board the “Impeach Kavanaugh” train.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is no stranger to smears coming from the mainstream media, ripped the Times in a must-read Twitter rant earlier today.

He started off by noting that the Kavanaugh hit piece would have gotten a student an “F” in high school, insinuating the piece should have never gotten past the paper’s editors. Because it did, Cruz suggested this proves the Times has a “political agenda”:

There’s just no other explanation but bias, asserted Cruz, as to why the paper omitted the critical information about alleged victim Deborah Ramirez:

Will any of the 2020 presidential candidates retract or amend their calls for impeachment against Kavanaugh? Of course not, Cruz opined:

Cruz is right. There is no legitimate justification whatsoever for why the paper published the article they did on Kavanaugh without noting the alleged victim does not even recall the alleged incident.

As I speculated earlier, I suspect this piece was published for one reason and one reason only: To help Democrats in their efforts to intimidate the sitting conservative-leaning Justices on the Supreme Court to rule on future cases in their favor in hopes that once they do, the media and leftists will finally leave them alone.

Cruz is also right in stating that it’s highly unlikely the NYT would have issued a correction had it not been for Hemingway’s tweet. Stories like these are why it’s very important that conservative new media types keep up the pressure on mainstream media outlets to own up to their mistakes and deliberate falsehoods.

Otherwise, nine times out of ten the fake news will stand as the official media-driven “record” in place of the truth.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Ted Cruz Destroys NY Times Over Kavanaugh Smear, Says It Confirms the Paper’s Bias and Political Agenda appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ted-cruz3-300x153 Ted Cruz Destroys NY Times Over Kavanaugh Smear, Says It Confirms the Paper’s Bias and Political Agenda washington D.C. Texas Ted Cruz Social Media SCOTUS republicans Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Congress Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com