Patterico's Pontifications

6/14/2017

New York Times: All the Blatant Lies That Are Fit to Print

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:39 pm

Outrageous dishonesty.

Not all the details are known yet about what happened in Virginia, but a sickeningly familiar pattern is emerging in the assault: The sniper, James Hodgkinson, who was killed by Capitol Police officers, was surely deranged, and his derangement had found its fuel in politics. Mr. Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer virulently opposed to President Trump. He posted many anti-Trump messages on social media, including one in March that said “Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

By now, every sentinent being on the planet knows Loughner was not motivated by Palin or anyone on the right. No matter. These nameless, faceless ghouls continue to lie with impunity, because nobody bears responsibility for their anonymously penned crock of utter horseshit.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

47 Responses to “New York Times: All the Blatant Lies That Are Fit to Print”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Well what do you expect krugman covered for sheriff dufuss and mist of the ‘honorable men’ of dc were willing to put the huntress to the torch, so civility has had its day.

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. This is the kind of thing that makes you want to grab someone by the scruff of the neck and shout at them until you’ve gone hoarse.

    The fact that they do it anonymously is infuriating. I want Sarah Palin to sue — if for no other reason but to find out who is responsible and shame them until the end of time.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. Well, the show trial – aka the Senate “Intelligence” Committee hearing – has concluded, and the Democrats and their fourth estate lapdogs are ratcheting up to 11 their spittle-flecked insanity. Alexandria is just more fuel on the fire. Meanwhile, Mueller will continue investigating….what, exactly? And he’ll get his scalps, because prosecutors can’t swing their big d*cks if they don’t. Remember, it’s not the non-existent crime, it’s the subtle incongruities in the English language that’ll get twisted into perjury that snags the prey. The lefty violence will escalate but now the right are punching back. When, not if, President Trump goes down, the real fireworks will begin. Always trust content from Lenny.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  5. I want Sarah Palin to sue

    Yes!

    You know the NYT folks must have sat there for an hour trying to figure out this horrible, twisted narrative, to supplant the real one.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  6. I also marvel at the media’s ability to completely ignore the purposeful gang slaughter in the inner cities while they highlight shootings like this.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  7. It takes no effort like Carlos slings chimps@ it is just there.

    narciso (d1f714)

  8. Yeah, two minute hate for the NY Times. But it’s kind of like being mad at a cat for killing a bird.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  9. Meanwhile the nightly presidential assassination porn continues.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  10. Just remember this the next time you decide the Times is worthy of citing as a valued source.

    Gell-Mann Amnesia.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  11. The NY Times offices are filled with poeople who would happily march all the fascists off to death camps.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  12. Per New York Magazine’s website:

    It is hard to overstate the significance of what shedding “Fair & Balanced” means for Fox News. (It would be like the New York Times giving up “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”)

    They write this without a trace of irony. Not a trace.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  13. How can any sentient being be surprised at the Times’ utterances from the swamp?

    harkin (485617)

  14. The NY Times is untrustworthy and has been since Walter Duranty carried water for Uncle Joe Stalin. Their slogan should be ‘Perfity, Perniciousness, and Propaganda in Service to Totalitarian Collectivism.’

    ropelight (f923af)

  15. It is pure evil to use these tragedies for politics. The Giffords example is one of the most ghoulish and that it’s being used now, as though there’s some sort of political propaganda battle about which side is to blame for the actions of nuts, is taking things to a new level.

    Donald Trump is doing well to talk about unity instead of partisanship, and while there will always be some jerks on the internet trying to score a few points with tragedy, Americans reject that partisanship score crap.

    I just hope Scalise comes through this.

    I noticed the Times is using the killer’s name over and over and over again, while more reputable institutions are not giving him the notoriety.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  16. Jared Loughner shot those people in front of the Safeway where we sometimes shop. It is a mile away.

    He was obviously schizophrenic and his mother, who worked for the Democrat sheriff (who lost the next election) suppressed numerous complaints about his behavior. That sheriff was also behind the “bullseye” allegation, I believe.
    I think I read that he specifically hated Giffords because she had shown no interest in his delusion that the government was controlling people’s minds with grammar.

    It had nothing to do with politics or Palin.

    Mike K (f469ea)

  17. Greetings:

    Me, I’m thinking that the use of the word “sniper” is also so much of a stretch as to be inaccurate. Snipers tend to do their work from concealed positions, at least initially.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  18. “It had nothing to do with politics or Palin.”

    Yet, as the acrid smell of gunsmoke still hung in the air, Democrats and media ghouls immediately rushed to the TV cameras to spew their propaganda campaign to blame Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular.

    It was a most despicable example of the betrayal of the special public trust journalists and elected officials have under the provisions of our constitution.

    The media elite and their Drmocrat accomplices overwhelmed the actual facts of the tragedy, surpressing the truth, in order to flood the channels of national communication with falsehoods designed to smear political opponents.

    This is what opportunistic cynicism looks like in modern politics as practiced by so-called ‘Progressives.’

    ropelight (f923af)

  19. After the initial announcement of the shooting, I knew the shooter had to be a democrat. How? Because the news claimed some 50 shots were fired but only 4 victim’s hit.

    Bar Sinister (f5ce19)

  20. The NY Times has now added the following to the end of the second paragraph above:

    But no connection to that crime was ever established.

    which satisfies no one, and just makes the comments about Palin superfluous.

    http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/06/15/ny-times-issues-correction-editorial-still-garbage/

    Kevin M (752a26)

  21. Patterico, either you’re missing a sentence or they’ve added it to the article:

    But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

    This appears right after what you have in bold.

    Tillman (a95660)

  22. Tillman, see comment #20

    Kevin M (752a26)

  23. I think the New York Times editorial board just doesn’t remember what the fact are in the Loughner shooting Giffords case.

    16. Mike K (f469ea) — 6/15/2017 @ 7:19 am

    I think I read that he specifically hated Giffords because she had shown no interest in his delusion that the government was controlling people’s minds with grammar.

    She didn’t treat his letters with respect, even the kind of respect to say he was wrong or call him an idiot. Her answers were non-responsive but she pretended they were. That infuriated him.

    But this was just background. He just wanted to kill someone important, and Gabby Giffords was someone important whom he also mildly hated whom he also could get to.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  24. Palin’s online musings about suing them for libel may have had something to do with them adding those weasel words. It’s still libel, but muddled libel.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sarah-palin-may-sue-new-york-times-for-tying-her-to-gabby-giffords-shooting/article/2626087

    Kevin M (752a26)

  25. For haters, nothing is beyond the pale, nothing is out of bounds. That’s how hate works.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  26. Here’s a great question…

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/democratic%20party%20violence.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  27. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?_r=0
    Correction: June 15, 2017

    An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

    Neo (d1c681)

  28. 26. How are they making Charles J. Guiteau, who considered himself a Stalwart of the stalwart, into a Democrat? He was the most Republican of Republicans. Do the compilers of that list think they can just say anything??

    While that assaassination was more a result of personal craziness than anything else (he wanted to be appointed consul to Paris, and in no way could what he had done in the campaign cause anyone to think he should get that kind of reward – it was taken as an indictment of the “spoils
    system” that had been stated by Andrew Jackson in 1829 – and the first federal civil service law, the Pendletom Act was passed in 1883.

    In the same way this now didn’t really have to do with overheated political rhetoric.

    Garfield didn’t have to die, and if a quack doctor hadn’t sabotaged the method for determining what was inside the body taht Alexander Graham Bell had invented, he would have lived. That doctor had bene kept away from Abraham Lincoln in 1865, but he wasn’t kept away from Garfield.

    http://www.historynet.com/alexander-graham-bell-james-garfield.htm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25garf.html

    http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/potomac/9781612347684/

    Despite Bell’s efforts to save Garfield, however, and as never before fully revealed, the interventions of Garfield’s friend and doctor, Dr. D. W. Bliss, brought about the demise of the nation’s twentieth president.

    But why would a medical doctor engage in such monstrous behavior? Did politics, petty jealousy, or failed aspirations spark the fire inside Bliss that led him down the path of homicide? Rosen proves how depraved indifference to human life—second-degree murder—rather than ineptitude led to Garfield’s drawn-out and painful death. Now, more than one hundred years later, historian and homicide investigator Fred Rosen reveals through newly accessed documents and Bell’s own correspondence the long list of Bliss’s criminal acts and malevolent motives that led to his murder of the president.

    Available on Amazon.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  29. The mendacious NY Times does it again. Compared to yesterday’s killer, Jared Loughner was apolitical. The Tucson shooter had a documented history of mental illness while yesterday’s killer was merely an asshole.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  30. I’m not sure what time this appeared, but’s it’s on the page now:

    Correction: June 15, 2017
    An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

    Tillman (a95660)

  31. *but it’s (sorry)

    Tillman (a95660)

  32. Is this actionable? What about “An epidemic of child rape is sweeping the North West, but so far there are no indications that Sarah Palin is involved in these crimes.”

    Richbert88 (ddc02c)

  33. Me, I’m thinking that the use of the word “sniper” is also so much of a stretch as to be inaccurate. Snipers tend to do their work from concealed positions, at least initially.
    11B40

    He was no way a *sniper*, 11B40. Being a sniper requires intense training and excellent shooting skills. If a *sniper* fired 50 rounds fifty congressmen would have been down. We don’t miss.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  34. Sean Spicier‏ @sean_spicier · 3h3 hours ago

     More

    Scott Spicier (Parody acct) on Twitter:

    “5 years ago, if you would’ve told me Trump would be President and Sarah Palin would own the New York Times, I would’ve called you nuts”

    harkin (536957)

  35. That doctor had bene kept away from Abraham Lincoln in 1865, but he wasn’t kept away from Garfield.

    Lincoln did not live long enough. Garfield was treated as other gunshot wounds were treated at the time. There was no successful repair of an intestinal wound in the Civil War and for many years after. Halsted published “Circular Suture of the Intestine in 1887. The Murphy Button was introduced in 1892 because results were so poor with attempts at suture. In World War I most abdominal gunshot wounds were left in a tent called “The Resurrection Ward” since so few survived.

    Garfield would probably have survived if he had been left alone. Even today there is a myth that bullets must be found and removed. I have probably operated on a thousand gunshot wounds of the abdomen and trunk. Unless the police wanted the bullet, I never looked for it.

    Mike K (f469ea)

  36. Just read the Politifact judgement on the Times’ smear of Palin.

    Even they got it right and judge it false.

    Btw, from reading this article you find that all the day’s print version went out with the smear. IOW Mission Accomplished

    Btw they also kind of excuse the smear with this little bit of anti-journalism:

    The editorial, penned amid the frenzy of the mass shooting……

    They just can’t help themselves.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/15/new-york-times-editorial-board/no-evidence-sarah-palins-pac-incited-shooting-rep-/

    harkin (873170)

  37. And of course, Democrats would NEVER be that insensitive as to hint at “targeting” opponents.

    https://heatst.com/politics/nj-democratic-strategist-starts-huntrepublicans-and-huntrepublicancongressman/

    Kevin M (752a26)

  38. Has it been established that Hodgkinson specifically targeted Scalise – had singled him out – or was Scalise just a Republican who happened to be a target of opportunity?

    ropelight (f923af)

  39. The only thing I’ve heard which happened that morning that suggests specific targeting is regarding the question shooter allegedly asked on were they Dems or Repubs.

    harkin (873170)

  40. Scalise’s vital signs have ‘stabilized,’ hospital ‘encouraged’ by ‘improvement’ in last 36 hours

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-scalise-bullet-us/story?id=48087818

    Stay strong! Get well soon.

    harkin (873170)

  41. I was over at the WSJ reading the comments to Noonan’s column and it occurred to me that in a multicultural society, it just isn’t possible to come together. Add in intersectionality theory and the only possible method to come together is as ‘victims’, but we’ve seen what happens at a Progressive convention of ‘victims’ when they fight for being the most ‘victimized class.’

    This certainly explains how the Congressional ‘us’ quickly devolved into ‘us’ and ‘them’.

    Neo (d1c681)

  42. So are we to assume that Hodgkinson just happened to encounter Congressman Scalice at the baseball field and decided to target him as an easy kill?

    Or did Hodgkinson all along intend to shoot Scalise down like an annoying dog in the street?

    ropelight (f923af)

  43. He had a just. Ropeljght, of the. Members of the freedom. Caucus,,but scaluse was among the first targets

    narciso (d1f714)

  44. So are we to assume that Hodgkinson just happened to encounter Congressman Scalice at the baseball field and decided to target him as an easy kill?

    He’d been lurking there for a few weeks and probably spotted a bigwig arriving.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  45. One commenter noted this didn’t come from a rookie reporter looking at the files, but from the editorial section, the old sweats who know better. Not, iow, an accident.

    Richard Aubrey (a09608)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3091 secs.