In a slate of horrifyingly bad leftwing candidates, the others ought to be thanking the Maine Kampf guy for running cover for the rest of them.
We’ve got Texas Talirico Larping as a Christian Minister while spouting off more like a creepy cult leader. We’ve got Adam Hamawy in New Jersy whose got connections to not only the Blind Sheik, more commonly known as the mastermind behind 9/11, but he also served in a Bosnian front group for Al Qaeda.
The more you look at the Democrat bench, the worse it gets.
It’s anybody’s guess whether this was a deliberate play or just a crazy happenstance, but Platner has a new scandal every week, and it’s all anyone wants to talk about these days. Even the New York Times is in on it. But… they’re not sharing the negative press in exactly the same way that hostile news sources (from both the right AND the left) are sharing.
It’s being alleged by the Daily Caller that the New York Times is working hard to run cover for the would-be senator with the Nazi Tattoo.
The Times’s goal here was not to fairly give hearing to allegations against Platner; it was to play Fifield for a sucker, give her story just enough air that the Democrat Party’s cretin media and consultant class could zero in on it and crush it.
And it becomes very, very obvious with a careful read of the story and the response.
The Times’s supposed vaunted exposé on Platner buries its lede 22-paragraphs in to the piece. By the time readers got to the allegations that should have opened the article, they had already been marched through campaign spin, euphemistic mush, and ex-girlfriend character witness.
In fact, for the first third of the New York Times expose, they focused on women provided to the newspaper by the Platner campaign — who, of course, sang the degenerate former bartender’s praises. And frankly, that is all many readers will come away with, because that is about as far as their attention span lets them get into the narrative. Which is, again, the point.
Prior to publication, I’m told that the Times spoke to two women who had credibly accused Platner of sexual assault. This detail was revealed to Fifield — likely in an effort to encourage her to divulge more of her story. Those women’s allegations never made it into the story. They were effectively ‘killed’ by the Times’s editors and by Platner’s attorneys, I’m told. — Daily Caller
It’s only natural that Dems desperate to reclaim political power will do everything they can to bury a story that makes their own candidate look bad. And sadly in line with the low bar we expect of them, even when it’s covering up allegations of sexual assault.
But for journos to run a capture-and-kill piece to help them out? Shameless.
They love to accuse the political right of being ‘NAZIs’ and all manner of other undesesrved epithets.
But when it comes to exposing the wrongdoing of someone who embraces aspects of NAZIsm intentinally? The track record over at NYT isn’t great.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, Holocaust scholars such as David Wyman began examining how the New York Times and other segments of the U.S. media covered the Holocaust. What they found was not flattering. Yet spokesmen for the Times refused to acknowledge that disturbing truth. So in September 1996, on the 100th anniversary of the Ochs-Sulzberger family’s acquisition of the Times, Rosenthal decided the time had come to squarely face the newspaper’s Holocaust record. In his column on the op-ed page of the Times, he wrote:
“For years Times editors, reporters and executives tried to explain to themselves why the paper grievously underplayed the Holocaust while it was going on,” Rosenthal wrote. “Most of the world press did the same. But what mattered to us was the record of our own paper. Stories appeared now and then about Nazis killing Jews, but usually small, inside and without even trying to deal with the total horror.”
[…]
The complete story of the Times and the Holocaust is revealed in Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper, by Prof. Laurel Leff, which was published last year. Leff describes how the Times’ publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, an assimilated Jew and anti-Zionist, instructed his editors to downplay news about the suffering of Europe’s Jews so that the newspaper would not appear to be too concerned with Jewish matters. — David S Wyman Institute
But Graham Platner isn’t a NAZI, some might argue. He’s said it himself — he’s a Communist.
Let’s play along with that line of argument a little. What has the track record of the Times been with actual communists?
The New York Times is looking to add to its list of 132 Pulitzer Prizes — by far the most of any news organization — when the 2022 recipients for journalism are announced on Monday.
Yet the war in Ukraine has renewed questions of whether the Times should return a Pulitzer awarded 90 years ago for work by Walter Duranty, its charismatic chief correspondent in the Soviet Union.
“He is the personification of evil in journalism,” says Oksana Piaseckyj, a Ukrainian-American activist who came to the U.S. as a child refugee in 1950. She is among the advocates for the return of the award. “We think he was like the originator of fake news.” — NPR, May 2022
Yeah.
They’re not in the habit of giving back Pulitzers they get for bogus reporting, whether in praise of foreign Tyrants, or the baseless slandering of American Republican presidents.
But when it comes to journalistic integrity?
They haven’t got history on their side. In fact we’ve got direct evidence of their decision to elevate the priority of political narratives above actual the news of the day.
LEAKED: New York Times Staff Meeting Reveals The NEW Plan On How To Cover President Trump
Of course, the Pulitzer people will have their opportunity to explain why they haven’t rescinded reporting based on lies when Trump sees them in court.
Who knows, maybe the Times will have to give back the subversive 1619 Project award they got, too.
Wouldn’t that be a nice cherry on top for the 250th?
A guy can dream, can’t he?
