Denying some of the world’s most revered news organizations access

[ishtat]

I guess the here is you thinking what you've posted to this thread is middle of the road.

It may not be 'middle of the road' but the views expressed by Chloe square pretty well with those of the people who voted for Trump. She has also said she perceives herself as a moderate and is not all that political.

I suspect that Chloe's essential view is that she was fed up to the back teeth with the status quo - like some 60 million others, many of whom feel that mainstream parties have nothing to offer, serving only special/donor interests.

The fact is Trump offered change, Clinton offered nothing - a total policy/conviction vacuum. I reckon Trump's got about 18 months to achieve something before he pisses his voters off. He is more likely to fail than not, but among a lot of dross there are 3 or 4 excellent cabinet appointments and an excellent SCOTUS nominee.

But my guess is that events will screw him over at some point.

 

[Chris_Michael]

Oh shit, I've been seeing the name "Chloe" quite a bit lately. I never actually read the profile name of who you all were talking about. Yeah yeah, I saw something Chinese and skipped it. Sue me. I'm racist!

Anyway, I've been wondering because my yellow lab's name is Chloe and she's the most lovable, sweetest dog in the entire world!

Well anyway.

Good morning! I hope all you wonderful fuckers have a great day! And remember, if it weren't for somebody on the other side, you'd have nobody to argue with! You may even like the other people in person! So, be civil with each other and don't act like a bunch of liberals.

Take care!

 

[Maidboy]

Enjoy standing with American citizens (hyphenating those terms is racist)

I suppose organizations like the Irish-American Hall of Fame and Italian-American Anti-Defamation League are racist hate groups. I'll bear that in mind at the next Saint Patrick's and Columbus Day parades.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Considering how much you Yanks demand assimilation you have a lot of ********-American groups. I think we up here embrace multi-culturalism and yet probably assimilate new comers far better.

 

[Maidboy]

Considering how much you Yanks demand assimilation you have a lot of ********-American groups. I think we up here embrace multi-culturalism and yet probably assimilate new comers far better.

When Americans of European ancestry cling to their ethnic identity, it's pride but when brown people do it, the wingnuts cry racism. I live in an American city where multi-culturalism is embraced and celebrated. Other parts, yeah, not so much.

 

[sr71plt]

It may not be 'middle of the road' but the views expressed by Chloe square pretty well with those of the people who voted for Trump. She has also said she perceives herself as a moderate and is not all that political.

In the formerly known real world, those two statements are diametrically opposed to each other. I'm well aware that at the crux of Trumpism is the move to make them sound the same. I reject that move.

 

[ishtat]

In the formerly known real world, those two statements are diametrically opposed to each other. I'm well aware that at the crux of Trumpism is the move to make them sound the same. I reject that move.

I don't disagree with your analysis Pilot, the statements are contradictory, but they are none the less real. It will take some time and the disillusionment of the Trumpster voters to achieve a turnaround.

Meanwhile the Democrat machine has a heap of re-building to do. They lost half their most conservative wing (the blue dogs) in 2010 and if they lurch further to the left the Dems could be out of office for a generation. There is a massive leadership vacuum to be filled and it won't sell to voters if they put another experienced geriatric at the top of the ticket.

My guess is that Trump will eventually implode but over what who knows. If he could achieve radical taxation reform he might get away with it, but there are sufficient lunatics in Congress to prevent that unlikely outcome.

 

[zotique]

Funny how the New York times, publishing since 1851 and winner of 119 Pulitzer prizes was a legitimate news organization until Trump was elected and now it is suddenly the purveyor of "fake news."

 

[Maidboy]

Funny how the New York times, publishing since 1851 and winner of 119 Pulitzer prizes was a legitimate news organization until Trump was elected and now it is suddenly the purveyor of "fake news."

And an Enemy of the People!

 

[ChloeTzang]

And an Enemy of the People!

[Please do not post copyright material without citation, and then limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs, per our forum guidelines.]

 

[Maidboy]

Holy shit on a shingle, that's one long-ass incoherent rant! Have you been snorting Uncle Walt's Crystal Blue Persuasion again? You Trumpkins really are some hardcore tweakers, aren't you?

 

[KingOrfeo]

You said it...... just a grand old tradition of the New York Times, generating leftist fake news and lies for decades and complicit in the mass murder of millions.... who'd a thunk it .... real mass murder of millions of people ... not your pretend bs ....

Is the New York Times "airbrushing" history again? It would seem so. On Saturday, November 22, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko presided over a commemoration in Kiev of the 75th anniversary of the famine genocide of 1932-1933 that took the lives of 7-10 million Ukrainians. Known as the Holodomor (Ukrainian for "murder by hunger"), it is one of the greatest mass murders in history, and one of the cruelest. Joining President Yushchenko for the event were official delegations from 44 countries, including the presidents of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Macedonia, Georgia, Latvia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina.

The New York Times prides itself on being the national "newspaper of record" and still carries its longtime motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print" in the upper left-hand corner of its front page. If we are to believe the Times' motto, the week-long Holodomor commemoration didn't take place, or at least it didn't qualify as "news." A search of the Times website — using both visual scan and their own search engine — yielded zero results for current or recent stories.

Look, that's not fake news, that's a matter of editorial judgment. The commemoration ceremony was not considered important enough to cover. The Holodomor, while it was happening, was.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You need to put down the crack pipe, Chloe

https://www.thenewamerican.com/worl...ukrainian-genocide-ny-times-still-covering-up

Chloe cut and pasted from a right wing rag

Some other recent articles by the prolific William Jasper:

STICKER SHOCKER! Cost of UN Climate Pact $100 TRILLION

Congress Investigates Fraudulent Science Used by NOAA to push UN Global Warming Treaty

The Terrorists Among Us: Rarely Mentioned Not-so-peaceful Refugees and Immigrants

Rogue's Gallery of EU Founders

'Love Trump's Hate'--and if you disagree we'll KILL you!

Catholics ask Trump to probe Soros-Obama-Clinton Conspiracy at Vatican

FYI an easy Google Search will illuminate the history of the "Perfideous" Walter Durant, the Pulitzer Prize and the contemporary NY Times response to this "scandal"

The New American, btw, is a subsidiary of the John Birch Society

 

[ChloeTzang]

You need to put down the crack pipe, Chloe

https://www.thenewamerican.com/worl...ukrainian-genocide-ny-times-still-covering-up

Chloe cut and pasted from a right wing rag

Oh, is that all? So, that's no problem, it's not like Holodomor Denial is uncommon. Kind of like Holocaust Denial. It's a Nazi/Leftie thing, this denial. Just point me straight to anything where the NY Times does a real mea culpa for their outright lies, not just something like their ''As someone who spent time in the Soviet Union while it still existed, the notion of airbrushing history kind of gives me the creeps.'' - and he was talking about Duranty's lies when he said that.

Don't be criticizing the messenger now, coz of course no left-wing propaganda rag is going to come out and criticize the "revered" NY Times.

If you want left-wing sources on the Holodmor denial by Duranty and the NY Times, try....

Denial of the
Holodomor - Wikipedia - left wing bias pretty much guaranteed

"According to Patrick Wright,[31] Robert C. Tucker,[32] Eugene Lyons,[33] Mona Charen[34] and Thomas Woods [35] one of the first Western Holodomor deniers was Walter Duranty, the winner of the 1932 Pulitzer prize in journalism in the category of correspondence, for his dispatches on Soviet Union (called incorrectly Russia) and the working out of the Five Year Plan.[36] While the famine was raging, he wrote in the pages of The New York Times that "any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda", and that "there is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation, but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."[33]

Duranty was well aware of the famine. He told in private to Eugene Lyons and reported to the British Embassy that the population of Ukraine and Lower Volga had "decreased" by six to seven million.[37] However, in his reports, Duranty downplayed the impact of food shortages in Ukraine. As Duranty wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March 1933, "Conditions are bad, but there is no famine... But—to put it brutally—you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

31 - Wright, Patrick (2007). Iron Curtain. Oxford University Press. pp. 306, 307. ISBN 0-19-923150-8. He (Duranty) had become creatures of the Soviet censors.

32 - Tucker, Robert (1992). Stalin in Power. Norton & Company. p. 191. ISBN 0-393-30869-3.

33 - Lyons, Eugene (1991). "The Press Corps Conceals a Famine". Assignment in Utopia. Transaction Publishers. pp. 572, 573. ISBN 0-88738-856-6.

Oh, jet, and here's something from the NY Times - Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says

In an interview last night, Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said he concurred with Mr. Sulzberger. ''It's absolutely true that the work Duranty did, at least as much of it as I've read, was credulous, uncritical parroting of propaganda,'' said Mr. Keller, who covered the Soviet Union for The Times from 1986 to 1991. And yet, Mr. Keller added, ''As someone who spent time in the Soviet Union while it still existed, the notion of airbrushing history kind of gives me the creeps.''

Which, incidentally, was quoted word for word in the article I pasted.

The economist

Washington Post

There's a lot more, not worth the effort to list them all. Anyone that would trivialize the deaths of 30,000 people a day by deliberate starvation, to the tune of ten million and perhaps more dead, a number that dwarves the Holocaust visited on the Jews, really isn't worth discussing anything with. You take your "revered" New York Times, complicit in the mass murder of millions, and go join the worshipers of the Nazi's and the Bolsheviks and all those other socialist mass murderers like Mao and Pol Pot. You're in good company if that's your bent. And you call me sociopathic.

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAB2AAAAJDMwNDAyODU2LTM5MDctNDg4ZS1hYmI2LWI1ZjE0MjEwNjBkYw.jpg

 

[Carnal_Flower]

That is some whacky shit you're smoking.

Oh, is that all? So, that's no problem, it's not like Holodomor Denial is uncommon. Kind of like Holocaust Denial. It's a Nazi/Leftie thing, this denial. Just point me straight to anything where the NY Times does a real mea culpa for their outright lies, not just something like their ''As someone who spent time in the Soviet Union while it still existed, the notion of airbrushing history kind of gives me the creeps.'' - and he was talking about Duranty's lies when he said that.

Don't be criticizing the messenger now, coz of course no left-wing propaganda rag is going to come out and criticize the "revered" NY Times.

If you want left-wing sources on the Holodmor denial by Duranty and the NY Times, try....

Denial of the
Holodomor - Wikipedia - left wing bias pretty much guaranteed

"According to Patrick Wright,[31] Robert C. Tucker,[32] Eugene Lyons,[33] Mona Charen[34] and Thomas Woods [35] one of the first Western Holodomor deniers was Walter Duranty, the winner of the 1932 Pulitzer prize in journalism in the category of correspondence, for his dispatches on Soviet Union (called incorrectly Russia) and the working out of the Five Year Plan.[36] While the famine was raging, he wrote in the pages of The New York Times that "any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda", and that "there is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation, but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."[33]

Duranty was well aware of the famine. He told in private to Eugene Lyons and reported to the British Embassy that the population of Ukraine and Lower Volga had "decreased" by six to seven million.[37] However, in his reports, Duranty downplayed the impact of food shortages in Ukraine. As Duranty wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March 1933, "Conditions are bad, but there is no famine... But—to put it brutally—you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

31 - Wright, Patrick (2007). Iron Curtain. Oxford University Press. pp. 306, 307. ISBN 0-19-923150-8. He (Duranty) had become creatures of the Soviet censors.

32 - Tucker, Robert (1992). Stalin in Power. Norton & Company. p. 191. ISBN 0-393-30869-3.

33 - Lyons, Eugene (1991). "The Press Corps Conceals a Famine". Assignment in Utopia. Transaction Publishers. pp. 572, 573. ISBN 0-88738-856-6.

Oh, jet, and here's something from the NY Times - Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says

In an interview last night, Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said he concurred with Mr. Sulzberger. ''It's absolutely true that the work Duranty did, at least as much of it as I've read, was credulous, uncritical parroting of propaganda,'' said Mr. Keller, who covered the Soviet Union for The Times from 1986 to 1991. And yet, Mr. Keller added, ''As someone who spent time in the Soviet Union while it still existed, the notion of airbrushing history kind of gives me the creeps.''

Which, incidentally, was quoted word for word in the article I pasted.

The economist

Washington Post

There's a lot more, not worth the effort to list them all. Anyone that would trivialize the deaths of 30,000 people a day by deliberate starvation, to the tune of ten million and perhaps more dead, a number that dwarves the Holocaust visited on the Jews, really isn't worth discussing anything with. You take your "revered" New York Times, complicit in the mass murder of millions, and go join the worshipers of the Nazi's and the Bolsheviks and all those other socialist mass murderers like Mao and Pol Pot. You're in good company if that's your bent. And you call me sociopathic.

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAB2AAAAJDMwNDAyODU2LTM5MDctNDg4ZS1hYmI2LWI1ZjE0MjEwNjBkYw.jpg

 

[ChloeTzang]

That is some whacky shit you're smoking.

Says it all. Not that I'm surprised.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh, is that all? So, that's no problem, it's not like Holodomor Denial is uncommon.

Yes, it is uncommon. Most people -- most Americans, at any rate -- have never heard of the Holodomor, but those who have don't deny it.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Yes, it is uncommon. Most people -- most Americans, at any rate -- have never heard of the Holodomor, but those who have don't deny it.

Oh, I don't know. The New York Times and Duranty did a pretty good job. The NYT seems to be still at it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh, I don't know. The New York Times and Duranty did a pretty good job. The NYT seems to be still at it.

Disregard is not denial. The Holodomor is simply old news. Do expect the NYT to report on the Battle of Gettysburg every time it's reenacted?

 

[ChloeTzang]

Disregard is not denial. The Holodomor is simply old news. Do expect the NYT to report on the Battle of Gettysburg every time it's reenacted?

No, but an outright apology for a."we deliberately lied and misled" our readers about the murder of ten million people and oh, that Pulitser, we don't deserve it would be appropriate. Of course, its something they do a lot of do why would they.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Now this is a fascinating article from Breitbart - a study from the Columbia Journalism Review and funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation among others shows that Breitbart News dominated right-wing coverage of the 2016 election and influenced narratives in the mainstream media. Excerpts from the actual CJR study

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/03/Twitter-shares-new.jpg

As you can see, based on Twitter shares, Breitbart is right up there with FNN, NYT and WaPo. I love this excerpt from the Breitbart article "Clearly unfamiliar with the concept of irony, left-wing Columbia Journalism Review claims that right-wing media led by Breitbart, practices “disinformation” and creates an “insulated knowledge community.”

This is from the CJR study itself but it's such an illustration of the mainstream media that it's worth quoting as well. Just hilarious. "What we find in our data is a network of mutually-reinforcing hyper-partisan sites that revive what Richard Hofstadter called “the paranoid style in American politics,” combining decontextualized truths, repeated falsehoods, and leaps of logic to create a fundamentally misleading view of the world. " ROTFLMAO. I can't take the irony.

 

[JackLuis]

Interesting post Chloe. I did notice that Russia Today was to the left of Breitbart, but right of center. Must be those Fascists Leftys you talk about?

 

[ChloeTzang]

Interesting post Chloe. I did notice that Russia Today was to the left of Breitbart, but right of center. Must be those Fascists Leftys you talk about?

No idea about where Russia Today would fall except I'm guessing it eould be on the right coz there news always seems to be accurate and unbiased except for their russian coverage. But Russia isn't left at all these days. Not sure what youd call them.

 

[phrodeau]

The CJR study is a fascinating read, but probably too challenging for right-wingers to understand. Most will only choose to read Breitbart's cherry-picked coverage of the study, I'm afraid.

The main conclusion of the study is that right-wing media is in an insular bubble that is divorced from reality.

 

[ChloeTzang]

The CJR study is a fascinating read, but probably too challenging for right-wingers to understand. Most will only choose to read Breitbart's cherry-picked coverage of the study, I'm afraid.

The main conclusion of the study is that right-wing media is in an insular bubble that is divorced from reality.

Yes, but the way it's worded, well, you could say all of that about the left-wing media enclosed in an insular bubble that's divorced from reality. ROTFLMAO at the irony. the CJR article is a great read. Worth taking a look at for any one. But i'm afraid only the Breitbart readers will truly appreciate the irony. However, given the sheer number of Breitbart readers, that's not an issue really.