Saturday, August 31, 2019

The Times Outraged: Panics as Media Matters Tactics Turned on Paper

A loose network of liberal operatives allied with the Democratic Party and the liberal media is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive, well-funded operation to discredit conservative media deemed hostile to Democrats and the American Left by publicizing damaging information about conservative journalists and other conservative media figures.

Spectator
                      Aiding and abetting attacks on conservative media backfires.


"Well, this is nothing if not rich.
"The New York Times headlined the story this way:
Trump Allies Target Journalists Over Coverage Deemed Hostile to White House
"The opening two paragraphs say this: 
WASHINGTON — A loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists.
It is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting. Four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country’s most prominent news organizations.
"Well.
"One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the utter hypocrisy in this story.
Here, for example, is this absolute gem of BS in the story (bold print supplied for emphasis):
But using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for — or as a warning not to pursue — coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.
"Let’s stop there for a moment. Memo to the New York Times: Your paper — and the media writ large — are the very definition of people in positions of power.” Are you kidding?" . . .


No comments: