Toobin's New Beat: Renowned Masturbator Joins New York Times

Talk about a career climax.

Jeffrey Toobin, one of the world's most prominent masturbators, is coming to the New York Times as an opinion columnist. It's another stroke of luck for the so-called legal analyst, who has managed to fully revive his career after being caught pleasuring himself during a Zoom meeting in October 2020.

The post Toobin's New Beat: Renowned Masturbator Joins New York Times appeared first on .

Anti-Israel Groups Recruiting Celebrities To Sign 'Unbranded' $200K NYT Ad Opposing Trump's Gaza Plan

Anti-Israel groups are privately organizing a full-page ad in the New York Times intended to showcase the Jewish community's alleged opposition to President Donald Trump's plan for an American takeover of Gaza, describing it as "ethnic cleansing," the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The post Anti-Israel Groups Recruiting Celebrities To Sign 'Unbranded' $200K NYT Ad Opposing Trump's Gaza Plan appeared first on .

US Government Dropped Millions On D.C.’s Favorite Media Outlet — Here’s What They Spent It On

'These entities will dig up vital public interest news information and only lobbyists can afford to read the news'

Wikipedia blacklists Blaze News and other right-leaning sources, ensuring it's a one-stop liberal propaganda shop



Wikipedia maintains that articles on its site "should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."

A new study by Media Research Center Free Speech America highlighted that Wikipedia has discounted right-leaning sources as reliable and prohibited their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing that the site is little more than a repository for liberal propaganda.

It's no secret that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are predominantly ideological myopes favorable to leftist causes, ideas, and personalities and antipathetic to conservatives of various stripes.

For instance, editors at Wikipedia, whose parent company blew 29.2% of its 2023-2024 budget on race-obsessive DEI programs, tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election; strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the list of executive branch czars; advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias; labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and gaslighted readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a a "conspiracy theory."

'Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead.'

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia — now run by the former chief operating officer for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and previously run by a censorious alumna of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program who stated that "our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done" — suffers a "significant liberal bias in the choice of news media sources."

The Dutch researchers noted further that "this effect persists when accounting for the factual reliability of the news media."

Wikipedia, which now deals primarily in "propaganda" and exists only to "give an establishment point of view" according to co-founder Larry Sanger, has apparently leaned harder into its bias.

The new MRC study noted that Wikipedia editors are permitted to cite a variety of leftist publications that have a reputation for pushing false narratives and fake news, including Jacobin, Mother Jones, NPR, and Rolling Stone, but are precluded from citing publications not similarly staffed by liberal activists.

Citing the Wikipedia page on reliable and perennial sources, the study highlighted that numerous reputable right-leaning publications have been blacklisted.

Wikipedia states, for instance, that Blaze News, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, the Epoch Times, Fox News, ZeroHedge, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post "should normally not be used" as sources and "should never be used for information about a living person."

"Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate," added the Wikipedia entry on reliable sources.

'It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative.'

Whereas most right-leaning publications were flagged as "generally unreliable," Breitbart News appears to have been among the few singled out for a formal blacklisting. Wikipedia alleged that the "site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact" and complained that the publication had revealed the identity of multiple Wikipedia editors.

The New York Times qualifies as reliable despite falsely accusing President Donald Trump of lying about Democrats' abortion ambitions; characterizing the suggestion that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab that conducted dangerous experiments on coronaviruses as a "fringe" "conspiracy theory lack[ing] evidence"; printing false Hamas propaganda; pushing the Russian collusion narrative; and misleading readers on various other issues.

Rolling Stone, which has paid out millions in the past for false and defamatory reporting, appears not to have learned its lesson, lying, for instance, in recent years about an imagined Florida book ban and smearing Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire. It was also characterized as "generally reliable."

Politico similarly received a reliable rating despite — or perhaps as a result of — its willingness to help a cabal of former intelligence officials interfere with the 2020 election by mischaracterizing the New York Post's reliable Hunter Biden laptop story as "Russian disinfo," and to mislead Americans about the working relationship between former President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the benefit of the former vice president's campaign.

According to the MRC study, only 16% of left-wing media sources were unable to secure Wikipedia's stamp of approval. Meanwhile, 100% of right-leaning sources were effectively blacklisted.

The MRC study noted further that the predicable result is that "conservatives, Republicans, and Trump appointees are smeared, maligned, and slandered by the most popular online source for information about people."

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, noted, "You've got to remember, none of this — none of it — is based in fact. We were right about COVID, right about Biden, right about immigration, right about trans. We were right about virtually every major contested issue impacting this country for the past 10 years, while over and over again outlets from the New York Times to PolitiFact were embarrassingly wrong."

"They can't handle that, and so the ideologues ban us," continued Bedford. "It's pathetic, but it's also dangerous, and every penny you give to support this project is a penny given against speech and truth."

Dan Schneider, MRC vice president, noted, "There used to be a joke about how Wikipedia could not be relied on by historians and academics. Wikipedia has now become the joke."

"Its radical editors and staff reveal their contempt for conservatives in almost everything they inject into descriptions," continued Schneider. "It was never something people could rely on for accurate information. It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Media Don’t Want ‘Independence’ In Trump’s Admin. They Want Insubordination

When Democrats and the media say they're concerned about 'independence' in Trump's appointees, they mean they want insubordination.

Blaze News original: Pro-lifers dunk on New York Times for falsely accusing Trump of lying about Dems' abortion ambitions



The New York Times has demonstrated on numerous occasions a willingness to bend or abandon the truth, especially when doing so might further leftists' political agendas.

The paper rushed, for instance, to print Hamas propaganda in October 2023, falsely suggesting that the Islamic Jihad rocket misfire that blew up a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds, was actually an Israeli airstrike. The paper also did its apparent best last year to furnish Democrats with the misleading narrative they needed to launch attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — reliant upon claims that even the Washington Post knew weren't worth a jot of ink. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, setting the stage for mass-murdering Mexican cartels to be designated foreign terrorist organizations, the Times undermined its credibility again, suggesting that identifying and holding terrorists responsible for their actions might hurt the economy.

This is far from an exhaustive list. In fact, the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War — recently misled readers on another issue, claiming that President Donald Trump had misrepresented Democrats' aims regarding abortion.

Pro-life groups were quick to hammer the Times over its latest publication of fake news and its corresponding attempt to obfuscate a damning truth.

'The Times has an obligation to report this evidence.'

In a letter shared with Blaze News, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the executive and political editors of the New York Times that "while abortion remains an issue that evokes strong opinions, feelings, and reactions, such personal perceptions cannot overtake journalists' obligation to report fairly, accurately, and impartially."

Highlighting information the Times apparently decided to gloss over, Dannenfelser noted that "the Times has an obligation to report this evidence, cite the facts, and allow readers to come to their own conclusion without the interference of bias, omission, or misinformation that has often characterized your coverage of the issue."

'Debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party.'

Among the articles Dannenfelser raised concern about was Times health policy writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg's Jan. 24 article, in which Stolberg stated that Trump "repeated false claims about abortion rights" in his video address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd March for Life, singling out his suggestion that Democrats are pushing "for a federal right to unlimited abortion on demand up to the moment of birth and even after birth."

Of course, to accept that Trump's assertion is false would mean discounting what Democrats have said and how they have voted in recent days and years.

NBC News, which Stolberg would apparently have readers believe was dealing in Trumpian falsehoods, noted in 2023 that some Democrats "insist on a sweeping national standard that goes beyond the one set by Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to have an abortion before a fetus is considered viable and allowed states to set limitations for abortions after that time frame."

The same report noted that the "notion of debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party, particularly reproductive rights advocates."

Multiple Democratic lawmakers have voted repeatedly to advance the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which would codify a federal right to abortion with virtually no limitations or requirements, enabling health care providers, including incentivized abortionists, to end a child's life after fetal viability on the basis of a "good-faith medical judgment" that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother's health.

National Review previously noted that the WHPA's chief sponsor in the Senate admitted that the bill "doesn't distinguish" between physical and mental health and that the legislation advises courts to "liberally construe" the provisions of the act. A risk to a mother's emotional state of mind could, therefore, potentially qualify as a risk to the mother's "health."

When asked whether he supports any limits on abortion, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, one of the many Democratic lawmakers who championed the WHPA, responded, "I don't believe so, no."

Such legislation would put the nation on a path to emulating at least eight Democratic states plus Washington, D.C., where there are no restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

Per Trump's suggestion, Democrats similarly want to minimize protections for babies who initially survive abortionists' attempted executions.

'Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence.'

When the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act went to a vote on Jan. 23, a total of 210 House Democrats voted against requiring health care practitioners to save babies who survive attempted abortions. Senate Democrats kept the sister bill from advancing a day earlier.

This is how the New York Times characterized the Democrat lawmakers' efforts to deprive abortion survivors of protection: "Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-written bill on Wednesday that could subject some doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties, thwarting the G.O.P.'s first attempt to restrict reproductive rights since the party has secured its governing trifecta."

"The facts are in President Trump's favor," Dannenfelser said in her letter. "Democrats have not been shy about also publicly stating their support for abortion at any stage and without limits. A long list of Democrats, ranging from Senators John Fetterman, Mark Kelly, and Patty Murray, to Governor Katie Hobbs and former Governor Ralph Northam have refused to name a point before birth at which they think abortion should be limited."

"It's clear to us and to many other readers that the Times isn't just reporting on a debate but taking a side, placing its thumb on the scale in favor of the pro-abortion argument," continued the pro-life advocate. "As editors, you know well that these intentional word choices matter. The facts matter. Truth matters. Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence in legacy news publications."

Blaze News reached out to Stolberg, asking her to clarify what precisely Trump had said in the above quote that was false. The Times reporter did not respond by deadline.

The conservative nonprofit CatholicVote was among the other groups and pro-life advocates that blasted the Times for its "false reporting," stating, "Uh, @nytimes, Democrats literally just voted against giving medical care to babies who survive botched abortions and can't name a single abortion limit they support."

Tim Graham, executive editor of MRC's NewsBusters, stated, "America's most prestigious newspapers routinely paint pro-lifers as extreme. They can't seem to locate themselves on the opposite extreme. Is it because they consider themselves the moral center? Extending the 'right to choose' to terminate babies ... born alive may seem logical to them. But it defines a radical fringe."

The apparent eagerness on the part of fellow travelers to mislead on Democrats' real objectives regarding abortion might be informed by polling showing that only a minority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases.

A 2024 Pew Research poll found that only 25% of Americans support the legality of abortion in all cases. A May 2024 Gallup poll found that 50% of respondents supported legal abortion, but only under certain circumstances. A previous Gallup poll found that only 22% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the third trimester.

A Knights of Columbus-Marist poll revealed on Jan. 23 that 67% of Americans — including 55% of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" — said that limits should be placed on when abortion is allowed.

Emma Camp, an assistant editor at Reason, recently noted in the Atlantic, "The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance — and reasonable policymakers should listen to them."

"Most Americans believe that third-trimester abortions should be restricted. If Democrats want a platform that truly reflects majority opinion, they should address the question of what to do about later abortions and adopt a position that protects abortions in the first trimester while limiting second- and third-trimester abortions to pregnancies with fetal abnormalities or maternal health crises," added Camp.

Democrats don't, however, appear keen to heed the concerns of Americans. Unwilling to abandon the promise of limitless abortion, they must rely on the media to gaslight the public about what they are really up to. Stolberg appeared more than willing to do her part.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH: MSNBC Pundit Compares ICE Deportations—Supported By Most Americans—To ‘Gestapo Raids’

MSNBC pundit Anand Giridharadas on Tuesday compared Immigrant and Customs Enforcement’s deportations to "Gestapo raids," though polls have repeatedly shown that most Americans support the agency's efforts.

The post WATCH: MSNBC Pundit Compares ICE Deportations—Supported By Most Americans—To ‘Gestapo Raids’ appeared first on .

NYT Uses Anonymous Terrorist Sources For Latest Deep State Hit On Tulsi Gabbard

The Times will accuse DNI nominee Tulsi Gabbard of meeting with then-Lebanese Hezbollah Supreme Leader Hassan Nasrallah in 2017.

The New York Times Still Refuses To Admit Kash Patel Was Right About Russiagate

Few people understand the FBI's Russia hoax abuses as well as Kash Patel, which is probably why The New York Times hates him.

'Who's got ahold of my son?' Liberal parents panic over losing their sons to MAGA



Some liberal parents have discovered that their sons aren't simply disinterested in their woke worldviews but are actually leaning hard in the opposite direction, donning MAGA hats and turning their backs on land acknowledgments, climate alarmism, fake pronouns, DEI, depopulationist rhetoric, and attacks on masculinity.

The New York Times ran a sob piece Sunday titled, "When Your Son Goes MAGA," detailing progressives' increasing difficulty speaking to the young men in their lives who voted for President Donald Trump.

Alex Behr, for instance — a 59-year-old Democrat in Portland, Oregon, who "voted enthusiastically" for Kamala Harris — figured her son for a "thoughtful college junior who had a serious skateboarding phase" until she and her ex-husband made the "appall[ing]" discovery that 20-year-old Eli, whom they adopted from China, had a mind of his own.

Apparently Alex Behr's strategy of tossing her son's "Make America Great Again" hat, telling him "facts don't matter to you," and badgering him over his views on guns, immigration, and abortion was ineffective. Eli Behr voted for Trump.

Alex Behr, concerned over her son's exposure to political views besides her own, told the Times, "I've had to do a lot of soul-searching and reading about it to not feel like I've failed as a mom."

Whereas his mother is working to displace blame for her domineering reflex in therapy sessions, Eli is apparently maintaining a level head.

"I love my mom," Eli told the paper, which indicated that he refrains from wearing his MAGA hat around his mother as a nicety. "I want her to stay a part of my family."

The Times told the tale of another leftist couple's perceived bereavement — that of Chris and Melanie Morlan of Spokane, Washington.

Everything was apparently working out nicely for the Morlans back when their son would still parrot their political views. However, around the time that Black Lives Matter rioters and other leftists started tearing coastal cities apart in 2020, their son reportedly began listening to YouTube channels that disparaged feminism and diversity, equity, and inclusion and, even more troubling, signaled support for Trump.

Their 24-year-old son was ultimately drawn to the Republican Party "as a defender of more conventional notions of manhood" — an appeal CNN talking head Dana Bash alluded to during the Democratic National Convention in August when she suggested that whereas the Republican Party courted the "testosterone-laden, you know, gun-toting kind of guy," Democrats were courting the Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz variety, "a man comfortable in his own skin who supports a woman."

Realizing she was losing her son to traditional conventions of manhood, Melanie Morlan, a family therapist, asked herself, "Who's got ahold of my son?"

Although keen to patronize her son, who voted for Trump in 2024, Melanie Morlan took a more diplomatic approach than Behr.

'Everything you're doing is destroying the planet. You've got to eat your peas.'

"I always tell him, 'I might get worried about you and I might feel sad because I don't think you understand some things that maybe you will down the road,'" Morland told the Times. "'But I'm going to love you more when you're struggling, because it's just politics.'"

In 2020, 41% of men ages 18-29 voted for Trump. Four years later, that number jumped to 55% — a spike that should have surprised no one.

Democratic strategist James Carville noted in a Times interview several months ahead of the election that the left was doing a great job of alienating red-blooded American men.

"'Don't drink beer. Don't watch football. Don't eat hamburgers. This is not good for you,'" said Carville. "The message is too feminine: 'Everything you're doing is destroying the planet. You've got to eat your peas.'"

While "feminine" browbeating coupled with the left's "faculty lounge" attitudes and "woke stuff" proved to be ballot-box poison, as Carville indicated, there were motivators besides the leftist chatter in the nation's capital.

The same month, the Guardian noted that young men's shift rightward was not just prompted by the society-wide feminism that painted them as monsters but by their corresponding push out of higher education and into financial uncertainty and depression.

Richard Reeves, head of the American Institute for Boys and Men, said, "This is less about young men being pulled towards the right than it is about them being pushed away from the left."

"Economically [men under 30 are] getting shafted, politically they're getting shafted, culturally no one's looking out for them," Daniel A. Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Times in August, indicating that Trump represented a remedy and another way.

Alex Behr and Melanie Morlan have wondered what exactly about Trump and MAGA attracted their sons. They might be better served asking what about their leftist worldviews wouldn't harm or repulse them in the first place.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!