Sunday, August 25, 2019

Legacy media whining about investigations into their bigotry

The Karmic Consequences of Heresy-Hunting 

Oozing with aristocratic entitlement and indignation, the legacy media are whining about the insolence of writers and broadcasters who have the effrontery to investigate the skeletons in their closet

By Michael Hoffman
Former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press
www.RevisionistHistory.org


These investigations have been declared to be off-limits and “clearly not journalism.” So saith Washington Post’s Lord High Emeritus Executive Editor, Leonard Downie Jr. 

He alleges that an "organized, wide-scale political effort to intentionally humiliate journalists and others who work for media outlets is something new. 

One wonders on what desert island hes been sojourning. The censorship, doxing, boycotts and obstruction of revisionists, black nationalists and Conservative and Christian journalists dont seem to register or even exist for media Brahmins of the upper crust.

Follow the money: the legacy media will brook no competition that harms its lucrative monopoly on news. Therefore, we dissident journalists are supposed to know our place and be content with our lot as virtually invisible. The many attempts to humiliate, libel, obstruct and remove us from Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and Instagram are of no concern to the High and Mighty in the legacy press.

"It’s one thing for Spiro Agnew to call everyone in the press ‘nattering nabobs of negativism, Mr. Downie said, referring to Agnew's critique of how journalists covered President Nixon. “And another thing to investigate individuals in order to embarrass them publicly and jeopardize their employment.” 

This is precisely what several corporate newspaper chains, cable television news, websites, blogs and podcasts have been doing for years, including the NY Time calling for the dismissal and loss of employment of alternative reporters who have been smeared as anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on.


A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, said in a statement that exposure of shady biographical facts about Times reporters was a case of taking Trump's "campaign against a free press to a new level. They are seeking to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with the leading news organizations that are asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light,” Mr. Sulzberger declared. 

When such tactics are used against the leading"news organizations they are immoral and wrong. However, when the Times, Washington Post and CNN smear, intimidate and prevent alternative journalists who work for smaller online operations from asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light,” then it’s not at all a matter for outrage. The news aristocrats have spoken. You may now kiss their designer shoes.


Mr. Sulzberger takes the moral high ground on behalf of his very profitable and powerful business behemoth: 

“The goal of this campaign is clearly to intimidate journalists from doing their job, which includes serving as a check on power and exposing wrongdoing when it occurs. The Times will not be intimidated or silenced.”

What about journalists who seek a check on your monopoly power and wrong-doing Mr. Sulzberger? What of your newspaperendeavor to jeopardize our employment?

Mr. Sulzberger’s heresy-hunting NY Times has shown zero interest in defending conservative reporters who are not members of the legacy media from calumny and blacklisting. 

Often the Times has been guilty of these odious tactics, which it now indignantly protests when its political rivals and business competitors employ them to deflate the reputation of the Times, and inform the public concerning the questionable character of some of its writers and editors.

In many cases Sulzberger’s newspaper has encouraged those attacks and covered up for thought police groups like Right Wing Watch and "Media Matters for America that closely investigate and attack conservative journalists, and Sleeping Giants, which is sworn to threaten and shame any platform online that dares to host radical alternatives to politically correct dogma and revolutionary social change.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a prominent thought police group campaigning for the censorship of history books at Amazon, the silencing of black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, and of activists who are outside the established boundary of permissible opinions about Israeli settler-colonialism and the racist creed of the Babylonian Talmud. Over the years, the New York Times has been a dependable mouthpiece for the ADL and complicit in its libel and intimidationyet the Times is horrified now that such tactics are being wielded against its own writers. Here we observe the grotesque hypocrisy of the entitled.


In June the heresy-hunters at Google’s YouTube removed several legitimate revisionist history videos, together with many white supremacist and hate speech videos. Having accepted without investigation Google’s deceitful description of all the videos it removed from YouTube as constituting "hate speech," the New York Times mechanically reported the entire ban in terms of taking down hate speech. Our video exposing Deborah Lipstadt’s hate speech toward historian David Irving was one of the films banned from YouTube. Consequently, our video which fulfilled a public service by advancing knowledge about the hate speech of an Establishment-revered Zionist celebrity (Lipstadt), was banned in the name of combating hate speech. The Times cooperated and was party to the masquerade. Revisionist researchers and activists are barely human in the eyes of the Times, and unworthy of the anguish and hand-wringing now being expended to defend their own hired hands from suppression and removal. This corrosive double standard undercuts Mr. Sulzberger’s protestations and reveals the corruption at the heart of his newspaper’s reporting.

Below is our note, which we e-mailed to the two NY Times employees who, in the August 25 online edition, told of the supposedly immoral and impudent move to investigate the background and statements of their distinguished fellow reporters at the legacy medias most honored and acclaimed flagship, to which every decent American is expected to demonstrate fealty.

Dear Messers Vogel and Peters

You wrote, "In the case of the pro-Trump network, research into journalists is being deployed for the political benefit of the White House.”

I can’t abide Trump but I consider these exposures of privileged  members of the legacy media delightful, due to the fact that said media have acquiesced in massive censorship and denial of service on Facebook, YouTube, Google and in Amazon’s censorship of historians’ dissident books. In these instances involving alternative writers and journalists who compete with the NY Times and other legacy media, there has been little or no solidarity offered by your fellow reporters and editors. 

In many cases where the harassed and interdicted alternative journalists are Conservatives, there have been expressions from members of the legacy media of satisfaction at the heresy-hunting, doxing and removals.

Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, we’re supposed to believe the process of sleuthing into journalists' public and private foibles and failings is somehow an outrage against press freedom? 

Freedom of the press does not begin at the gate of the legacy media. The Times, the Post, CNN etc. were the ones who first let the genie out of the bottle. You ought to deal with the karmic consequences without whining. 

Better yet, work for the freedom of expression of your lumpen proletariat rivals online.

Michael Hoffman
_____________

Your donation keeps Michael working for Truth
_____________

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous5:31 PM

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been a supporter of you & your (and mine) struggle and brave fighting, for several years now. I love in Detroit, so like most White Americans, I have many black & brown friends. And while I haven't read every word you've written, I've never seen anything like "hate-speech" from you.
    Keep fighting the good fight.
    Godspeed!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7:20 AM

    Is the following [analysis of years of research] of interest ?
    [I do not use google]
    Jim Carter
    proliberty@fairpoint.net
    ***********************************
    IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE OR CHINA THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES ??

    How is the Fed used to embezzle money from government for the benefit of Wall Street bankers ?
    Answer: https://thedailycoin.org/2018/08/16/a-look-at-the-federal-reserve-through-a-different-lens/.

    How is the embezzled money used to bring chaos and oppression throughout the world ?
    Answer: https://thedailycoin.org/2019/07/10/looking-at-the-imf-and-world-bank-through-the-eyes-of-a-wall-street-economist/.

    Is this the same future Wall Street has planned for the United States ??
    Answer: Yes. Ref. Douglas Valentine, CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME; John Perkins, CONFESSION OF ECONOMIC HIT MAN.


    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you think you can do some more interviews? There are a number of new video bloggers investigating the current state of Western Christian Civilization.

    ReplyDelete

WE DO NOT PUBLISH ANONYMOUS COMMENTS!
Your own name or a pseudonym may be freely used simply by beginning or ending your comment with your name or alias when posting your comment. Posting as Anonymous makes debate unnecessarily harder to follow. ANY COMMENT SUBMITTED SIMPLY AS ANONYMOUS WITHOUT ADDING YOUR NAME OR ALIAS AT THE BEGINNING OR END OF YOUR COMMENT WILL BE BLOCKED. Note: we appreciate submissions from people who do not hide behind anonymity, as do many trolls. Anonymous, unsigned comments have a high likelihood of being blocked.

Do not assume that ON THE CONTRARY necessarily agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand.

By clicking on the publish your comment button, be aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.