Mainstream Media Remains Silent on Nord Stream 2 Destruction

The lack of news coverage regarding what appears to be the U.S. destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline looks like a major psy-op.

Continue ReadingMainstream Media Remains Silent on Nord Stream 2 Destruction

Andrew Sullivan Applauds NYT Decision to Practice Journalism Regarding Transgender Issues

Andrew Sullivan celebrates that the NYT has declared that will insist on doing real journalism on transgender issues, even though loud activists, many of them posing as journalists, demand otherwise:

[T]his week, we saw another campus maneuver: an open letter from a thousand or so New York Times contributors, accusing the NYT of “follow[ing] the lead of far-right hate groups” in its coverage of transgender issues. Other campus tactics: a loud demo outside; alliance between insiders and outsider activists; public shaming of named journalists; accusations that the NYT is a “workplace made hostile by bias” (the now-familiar HR gambit); and non-negotiable demands for even more hiring solely on the basis of identity and ideology.

It’s an echo of Evergreen and Yale and Middlebury and Reed. The ploys are repeated because they work and there’s no downside. And almost all the university presidents caved. They held meetings and meetings; they apologized; they appeased; they conceded core liberal principles of free speech and dissent; they terminated dissident faculty; they equivocated and collaborated in the pursuit of “diversity” and then “equity.” In a word, they were pathetic.

And in the summer of 2020, when campus tactics invaded newsrooms, and writers and editors were purged for committing journalism that violated the orthodoxies of social justice, we saw a similar collapse of nerve.

But this time was different. Check this out, from the executive editor of the NYT. It’s the response we always needed from the leadership of besieged liberal institutions before and never got:

It is not unusual for outside groups to critique our coverage or to rally supporters to seek to influence our journalism. In this case, however, members of our staff and contributors to The Times joined the effort. Their protest letter included direct attacks on several of our colleagues, singling them out by name. Participation in such a campaign is against the letter and spirit of our ethics policy … We have a clear policy prohibiting Times journalists from attacking one another's journalism publicly or signaling their support for such attacks …

We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.

Readers know I’m often merciless about the NYT, but Joseph Kahn is a hero for the clarity of this."

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan Applauds NYT Decision to Practice Journalism Regarding Transgender Issues

NYT’s Continued Meaningful Discussion of Transgender Issues

Apparently, the memo has gone out that we can start relying on common sense again. Pamela Paul, writing at the NYT, discusses the bizarre and unfair campaign of threatened violence against J.K. Rowling. Perhaps this is the beginning of what surely should be a more productive conversation that recognizes the reality of the two biological sexes:

So why would anyone accuse her of transphobia? Surely, Rowling must have played some part, you might think.

The answer is straightforward: Because she has asserted the right to spaces for biological women only, such as domestic abuse shelters and sex-segregated prisons. Because she has insisted that when it comes to determining a person’s legal gender status, self-declared gender identity is insufficient. Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women. Because she has defended herself and, far more important, supported others, including detransitioners and feminist scholars, who have come under attack from trans activists. And because she followed on Twitter and praised some of the work of Magdalen Berns, a lesbian feminist who had made incendiary comments about transgender people.

You might disagree — perhaps strongly — with Rowling’s views and actions here. You may believe that the prevalence of violence against transgender people means that airing any views contrary to those of vocal trans activists will aggravate animus toward a vulnerable population.

But nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic. She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.

Take it from one of her former critics. E.J. Rosetta, a journalist who once denounced Rowling for her supposed transphobia, was commissioned last year to write an article called “20 Transphobic J.K. Rowling Quotes We’re Done With.” After 12 weeks of reporting and reading, Rosetta wrote, “I’ve not found a single truly transphobic message.” On Twitter she declared, “You’re burning the wrong witch.”

On Feb 15, 2023, GLAAD and its allies sent a letter to the NYT, broadcasting clearly that they don't want people to have real conversations about transgender topics. They insist that there is only one side to the story, and their allies have done their damndest to silence anyone with a differing viewpoint with shame, cancelation, economic loss and violence. GLAAD's letter was signed by more than a few people who have written for the New York Times. I waited with interest, curious about how the NYT would respond. The NYT response was very difficult to find on Google, which pretends to be an unbiased search engine, but was worth the wait:

The NYT also released this message that they will not tolerate the authoritarian tactics of those who pretend to seek to discuss trans issues:

Continue ReadingNYT’s Continued Meaningful Discussion of Transgender Issues

New York Times Refuses to Acknowledge Seymour Hersh Evidence that Joe Biden Committed the “Crime” of Destroying the Nord Stream Pipeline

Someone blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline. On Dec 26, the New York Times wrote a long article calling this a "crime." On Feb 8, Seymour Hersh gave us detailed evidence that Joe Biden committed this crime. The NYT has refused to even mention Hersh's blockbuster investigation. Here's the chronology.

Feb 7, 2022: Joe Biden promises that Russia invades Ukraine, the Nordstream 2 Pipeline will not be operational: "We will bring an end to it."

Sept 26, 2022 - The Nordstream 2 pipeline is destroyed.

Sept 28, 2022 - Washington Post scolds Tucker Carlson for reporting that the U.S. destroyed Russia's pipeline.

Sept 30, 2022 - White house denies U.S. involvement in destroying the pipeline. Accuses the Russians of lying. Claims that Russia destroyed its own pipeline. Mass Media gaslights U.S. Citizens that Russia purportedly blew up its own pipeline (see video below).

Feb 8, 2023 - Highly respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh issues news article detailed how the U.S. blew up the Nordstream 2 Pipeline.

Feb 8, 2023 - The White House claims that the article by Hersh, a well-decorated reporter, is "utterly false and complete fiction."

As of Feb 12, 2023 - The New York Times refuses to discuss Hersh's blockbuster findings.

Continue ReadingNew York Times Refuses to Acknowledge Seymour Hersh Evidence that Joe Biden Committed the “Crime” of Destroying the Nord Stream Pipeline