After Media’s Covid ‘Oopsie,’ I Don’t Want To Hear The Word ‘Misinformation’ Ever Again
Media gave air cover to censors by constructing artificial boundaries around acceptable thought and calling everything else 'misinformation.'Media gave air cover to censors by constructing artificial boundaries around acceptable thought and calling everything else 'misinformation.'WHCA Cartel Is Freaking Out Because It’s Losing Power And Control, Not Press Freedom
The media pearl-clutch about a 'free press' when they really mean their power and control are threatened.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.New York Times sets high bar for derangement by suggesting Trump's 'terrorist' label for cartels could hurt economy
Mexican drug cartels are responsible for the untimely deaths of hundreds of thousands of people over the past two decades. When factoring in the fentanyl they smuggle into the United States, the cartels are also culpable for the deaths of over 200 Americans a day. In addition to dealing in murder and addiction, they routinely engage in mass kidnappings, rape, torture, and political intimidation.
Evidently keen for a change, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Monday setting the stage for Mexican cartels as well as other criminal gangs operating in the Western hemisphere, including MS-13, to be designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The New York Times, afforded an opportunity with a new year and a new administration to embrace common sense, instead reverted to its old ways on Wednesday, concern-mongering about the economic impact of Trump's plan to identify and hold terrorists accountable.
The piece in the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War, reflexively willing to print Hamas propaganda, and instrumental in recent Democratic attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — stated at the outset that "President Trump's executive order designating Mexican cartels and other criminal organizations as foreign terrorists could force some American companies to forgo doing business in Mexico rather than risk U.S. sanctions."
Maria Abi-Habib and Simon Romero of the Times, both based in Mexico City, suggested that American companies fearing sanctions might think twice about doing business south of the border, especially with terrorists involved at various levels in supposedly legal industries, "from avocado farming to the country's billion-dollar tourism industry." The terrorist designation will make it easier to prosecute businesses and individuals suspecting of aiding the cartels, which could come down to transferring money to a compromised Mexican entity.
Fabian Teichmann, an expert on terrorist financing, told the Times that banks might be among the organizations that will ultimately decide it's no longer worth doing business with potential cartel members.
"Banks might say, 'We don't want to be anywhere close to those who are considered to be terrorists, so we want to avoid that risk,'" said Teichmann. "From a banking perspective, that will be a very reasonable decision."
'The Cartels' activities threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order.'
There are, of course, steps businesses can take to avoid working with terrorists.
The American firm FTI Consulting noted in a recent report that "the potential FTO designations underscore the urgent need for heightened due diligence when engaging with third parties."
"Recommended actions include conducting thorough background checks on potential partners, suppliers, employees and clients to ensure no direct or indirect connections to criminal organizations," continued the report. "Risk assessments of third parties should include close monitoring of changes in ownership, financial health and legal standing. Enhanced due diligence also requires regular updates to internal databases, cross-referencing with OFAC and other international sanctions lists, and utilizing advanced screening tools for continuous monitoring."
Whereas the FTI report, which was cited in the Times report, made clear there are possible steps corporations could take to ensure they're not getting into bed with killers, Abi-Habib and Romero nevertheless cast doubt on the possibility of identifying businesses devoid of cartel links, insinuating that the greater risk is not Americans going into business with mass-murdering rapists and drug traffickers but what might happen economically if they took the higher ground.
The Times, which failed to consider potential gains from Trump's EO such as fewer terrorists and a check on the opioid crisis that cost the U.S. an estimated $1.5 trillion in 2020 alone, suggested that the terrorist designation might lead to American companies having to wean off Mexican labor; a loss to the Mexican economy in the form of reduced remittances, in which the nation received $63.3 billion in 2023; and unilateral American military strikes on terrorists and terrorist facilities.
Trump, who has a mandate to do things the New York Times does not like, has a different set of concerns.
"The Cartels' activities threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere," he stated in his executive order Monday. "Their activities, proximity to, and incursions into the physical territory of the United States pose an unacceptable national security risk to the United States."
'Journalists at the New York Times get together in an editorial meeting and actually come up with this s**t.'
"It is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of these organizations' presence in the United States and their ability to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States through their extraterritorial command-and-control structures, thereby protecting the American people and the territorial integrity of the United States," added the president.
Regarding the Times article, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) wrote, "The New York Times publishes its own version of 'abrazos no balazos' — 'hugs not bullets' — a term popularized by former Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador, calling for gentle treatment of drug cartels."
"That was a bad strategy for Mexico," Lee continued. "It'll fare no better in the U.S."
"Of course it is the New York Times concocting this framing," tweeted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).
Stephen Miller, contributing editor at the Spectator, wrote, "A room full of journalists at the New York Times get together in an editorial meeting and actually come up with this s**t and publish it. There's not a single person in the room who goes hey wait a second."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The New York Times Fact-Checks Itself In Fumbled Fact Check Of RFK Froot Loops Claims
The New York Times was mocked online for having proved the point the paper was trying to discredit.Tucker Carlson delivers the 'perfect response' to NYT journo plotting a hit piece against conservative media
Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Mike Davis of the Article III Project revealed Monday that a New York Times reporter reached out to them for comment regarding an upcoming hit piece about so-called "misinformation" — the likely objective of which is to get conservative commentators demonetized or possibly removed from YouTube.
Shapiro pre-emptively attacked the paper and its apparent collaborators at the leftist outfit Media Matters, while Carlson shared screenshots of his fiery textual exchange with Times reporter Nico Grant.
"Would I like to participate in your attempt to censor me?" Carlson wrote to Grant. "No thanks. But I do hope you'll quote what I wrote above and also note that I told you to f*** off, which I am now doing. Thanks."
Grant apparently opened with an introduction and the following note to Carlson on Monday: "I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment for an upcoming article that takes a look at how political commentators have discussed the upcoming election on YouTube. We rely on an analysis conducted by researchers at Media Matters for America."
Media Matters for America is a leftist organization founded by Democratic operative David Brock. It claims to document "conservative misinformation throughout the media" and to notify "activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."
Media Matters, now led by Angelo Carusone — the former Democratic National Committee employee who fought to get Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck ousted from Fox News and was responsible for the "#DumpTrump" campaign in 2012 — now serves as an attack dog for the Democratic Party, characterizing dissenting views as "misinformation."
'So the New York Times is working with a left wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party?'
Media Matters is presently in hot water, as Elon Musk's social platform X sued the leftist organization last year for alleged defamation. Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Media Matters' request to have that lawsuit dismissed in August.
Grant asked Carlson to comment on the following points, which will apparently be including in the planned Times piece:
- "Media Matters identified 286 YouTube videos between May and August that contained election misinformation, including narratives that have been debunked or are not supported with credible evidence."
- "Researchers identified videos posted by you in those four months that contain election misinformation."
- "We feature a clip of you saying: '...All the sadness we've seen after the clearly stolen election. All these bad things happen, but people I know love each other more.'"
Shapiro and Davis appear to have been asked to comment on the same points but on different quotes.
'These outlets are beneath contempt.'
Grant gave away the plot with three follow-up questions, in all three cases, about the conservatives' membership in the YouTube Partner Program, their track records of demonetization, and history of notes from YouTube regarding "misinformation."
Carlson, wise to Grant's apparent scheme, responded, "So the New York Times is working with a left wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party? Please ask yourself why you're participating in it. This is why you got into journalism? It's shameful."
"I hope you're filled with guilt and self-loathing for sending me a text like this," continued Carlson. "Please quote me."
BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales said of Carlson's reply to Grant, "Epic."
Elon Musk tweeted, "Perfect response."
Mike Needham's forward-looking conservative think tank America 2100 tweeted, "These outlets are beneath contempt. 1) Powerful activist groups (Media Matters) put out enemy hit lists. 2) The press (New York Times) publishes the names to send a signal to Big Tech. 3) Big Tech dutifully censors the enemies. They're the enforcement arm of the Left."
Conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck wrote, "YouTube needs to be very careful how they respond to this story or risk a massive exodus from their site. Treating right wing content creators differently is going to become increasingly an offense that loses you a lot of business. People have alternatives now."
Chris Pavlovski, the CEO of the video platform Rumble, noted, "The corporate media is on their campaign to deplatform as many conservative voices as possible. This type of activist garbage is not possible on Rumble. @TuckerCarlson, we have your back."
Blaze News reached out to Grant and Media Matters for comment as well as for their definitions of "misinformation" but did not receive responses by deadline.
Grant has set his X page to private, so that his past tweets are now protected.
Shapiro referred to the anticipated Times-Media Matters hit piece as an "October surprise."
"What, precisely, is NYT doing?" wrote Shapiro. "It's perfectly obvious: using research from Media Matters, a radical Left-wing organization whose sole purpose is destroying conservative media ... in order to pressure YouTube to demonetize and penalize any and all conservatives ONE WEEK FROM THE ELECTION."
While noting that he supported the view that Biden won the 2020 election, Shapiro emphasized that the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to suggest otherwise.
"This is totally scandalous. In 2020, the legacy media shut down dissemination of the Hunter Biden laptop story and laundered the claim that it was all Russian disinformation, all to get Joe Biden elected," continued Shapiro. "In 2024, they're even more brazen: they're openly trying to intimidate YouTube, one of the most dominant news platforms in America, into shutting down anyone who isn't pro-Kamala."
Shapiro worked his way up to echoing Carlson's sentiment, concluding, "The New York Times wants comment? Here's my comment: kindly, go f*** yourself."
U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt responded by echoing the defiant, nearly assassinated Republican president, "Fight, fight, fight!"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The truth about the New York Time's source deep-fries Kamala Harris' McDonald's narrative
Kamala Harris has attempted to convince Americans on the campaign trail that rather than growing up the silver-spooned daughter of an affluent couple afforded the luxury of routinely flying back and forth between pricey homes in two countries, she was alternatively the product and a member of the middle class.
A critical component of this narrative is Harris' claim that she worked at McDonald's in 1983 — a claim not reflected in her past résumés and for which the vice president has produced no evidence.
Democrats and the liberal press have attacked President Donald Trump and others who have suggested that Harris' origin story is bogus. The New York Times dutifully did its part on Oct. 20 but accidentally torpedoed the narrative by naming its only other source besides Harris: a hardcore Harris booster.
At the outset, the Times' Heather Knight and Nicholas Nehamas likened doubts about Harris' politically expedient and unsubstantiated claim to birtherism, then shifted the burden of proof onto Trump:
Vice President Kamala Harris has recalled her stint at a Bay Area McDonald’s 41 years ago in introducing herself to voters — a biographical detail relatable to millions of Americans who have toiled in fast-food restaurants. But former President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly accused her of inventing it. Lacking a shred of proof, he has charged that she never actually worked under the golden arches — recalling his earlier false claim that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
President Donald Trump masterfully trolled his opponent while tapping into classic Americana last weekend, donning an apron and serving up french fries to supporters at a McDonald's in Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania.
'They don't want to report it because they're fake!'
"Now I have worked at McDonald's," Trump told reporters at the drive-through window. "I've now worked for 15 minutes more than Kamala. She never worked here."
In the lead-up to his brief stint as a fry cook, Trump repeatedly mocked Harris over her summer job claim, writing on Sept. 1, for instance, "Kamala said she worked at McDonalds — She never did. Lie!"
"She said she worked and grew up in terrible conditions, she worked at McDonald’s. It was such — she never worked there!" Trump told a crowd in Indiana last month. "And these fake news reporters will never report it. They don't want to report it because they're fake! They're fake!"
According to the Times, "Mr. Trump's seeding of doubts about Ms. Harris's story, while insidious and outside the lines of traditional fair play in politics, advances his goal of portraying Ms. Harris as a fraud."
The first time Harris publicly mentioned ever having allegedly worked at McDonald's was reportedly in 2019, when pandering to striking workers in Las Vegas. Harris suggested in September that she worked at the restaurant during college, echoing a campaign ad from the previous month. On another occasion, Harris suggested that she worked at McDonald's to help pay for law school, which she attended several years after leaving Montreal.
The Times produced no verifiable evidence of Harris' claims. Instead, it took the word of Harris, her campaign spokesman, and hearsay from a woman named Wanda Kagan.
As the Washington Free Beacon has noted, the Times portrayed Kagan as a family friend who heard about the McDonald's gig from Harris' deceased mother. The liberal paper neglected to inform readers that Kagan, the only source backing the McDonald's claim besides Harris and her campaign, is herself a Harris booster who has in recent weeks and months actively supported the Democrat's candidacy.
The Times noted only that Kagan was a "friend who had known Ms. Harris as a teenager and remained in touch with the family for years afterward" — a "close friend of Ms. Harris' when they attended high school together in Montreal, [who] said she recalled Ms. Harris having worked at McDonald's around that time."
The reality is that Kagan is much more than an old friend.
The Beacon noted that Kagan served as a surrogate for Harris during the Democratic National Convention, telling MSNBC in August, "It's an emotional and chilling ride, and I'm just overwhelmed with happiness for my friend, and I'm happy to be alive to be able to witness her now fighting for the people of America."
Earlier this month, Kagan posted a video from a Harris campaign event, captioned, "Blessed to be on the stage with @Vp, and the first one she toasts. Cheers to brighter future with @kamalaharris as president!"
Kagan, the partisan whose hearsay is holding up the Times' rebuttal to Trump's criticism, previously told PBS News that she lost touch with Harris after high school.
"I lost touch after she went to college and then I went to college. But then I stayed in touch with her mom still, and — but then I still had a pretty unstable life again, so I was moving a lot, and so I lost her mom's contact number," said Kagan, adding that she didn't reach out directly again until Harris was San Francisco's district attorney.
If secondhand information from a partisan who wasn't in touch with Harris during her college years is the extent of the Times' evidence, then perhaps it is not Trump who "lack[s] a shred of proof."
Spokesman Charlie Stadtlander told the Beacon the Times' Oct. 20 article "was a thoroughly reported and edited piece of independent journalism."
"The Times stands behind it completely," added Stadtlander.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
New national poll signals Trump's ascendance and that Kamala Harris' 'joy' isn't cutting it
A new nationwide poll indicated Sunday that Vice President Kamala Harris has lost her edge and may soon lose a great deal more.
The latest New York Times/Siena College poll asked nearly 1,700 registered voters between Sept. 3 and 6 whom they would vote for if the election were held today: 48% said they'd vote for President Donald Trump; 47% said Harris.
With minor candidates included, Trump has a two-point lead (48%-46%) over Harris.
The Times suggested the result was surprising because it is "the first lead for Mr. Trump in a major nonpartisan national survey in about a month."
Statistician and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver suggested over the weekend that these poll numbers "are just a bit worse for Harris than the previous NYT/Siena national survey in July and considerably worse for her than a series of battleground state polls the Times conducted in early August."
"The honeymoon is officially over," Trump spokesman Jason Miller told Politico, "and Kamala Harris has been exposed as a radical left individual who owns the destruction of our economy and our border."
It's clear that over the next few weeks, Harris will have to do more than campaign on "joy" and anti-Trump attacks.
Whereas only 12% of respondents said they needed to learn more about Trump, 31% said the same about Harris. 63% of respondents specified that they would like to know about her policies and plans.
While voters appear keen to know more about Harris' agenda, prominent Democrats have suggested in recent weeks that their candidate should continue to ignore the "nitty gritty" and focus instead on "vibes."
'None of this will matter if she has a good night.'
Rep. Annie Kuster (R-N.H.), the chairwoman of the New Democrat Coalition, told CNN, "I don't think there's a real strong reason for her to try and weed out any points of view right now."
Secrecy may not, however, constitute a winning strategy.
"I don't know what Kamala's plans are," Dawn Conley, a small business owner from Tennessee, told the Times. "It's kind of hard to make a decision when you don't know what the other party's platform is going to be."
The presidential debate Tuesday will afford Harris an opportunity to retire her platitudes and provide Americans with a basic idea of how she might run the free world.
Nate Silver suggested that "none of this will matter if she has a good night" at the debate.
However, the debate will also provide Trump with a chance to very publicly hammer Harris over three of the top four issues cited by respondents in the poll as deciding factors when voting in November: the economy, immigration, and inflation and the cost of living.
When asked which candidate they figured would do a better job of handling their top issue, 50% of respondents said Trump; 43% said Harris.
On the economy, 56% said Trump would do a better job; 40% said Harris. On immigration, 53% said Trump would do a better job; 42% said Harris.
Harris was, however, greatly favored to do a better job on the issue of abortion.
There appears to be a couple of issues in which Harris is on the wrong side where the majority of voters are concerned. For instance, 65% of respondents signaled support for increased domestic production of fossil fuels, and the majority (51%) oppose a federal law establishing price controls on food and groceries.
Price controls, climate-alarmist curbs on American energy, and other proposals advanced by Harris appear to have a plurality of Americans figuring her for a radical.
'Voters want a return to pro-America policies that actually work, not the weak, failed, and dangerously liberal policies of Comrade Kamala.'
While only 32% of respondents suggested Trump is too conservative, 47% of likely voters indicated Harris is too liberal/progressive. Whereas 40% of women said Harris leaned too far left, 56% of male respondents said so.
Harris' tether to Biden may also serve to trip her up in November. It appears that a great many respondents (63%) want the next president to "represent a major change from Joe Biden."
When it comes to assigning blame for the Biden-Harris administration's failures, 55% of respondents said Harris should receive some or a lot of blame for rising prices; 63% said she should receive some or a lot of blame for problems at the border; and 49% said she should receive some or a lot of blame for the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan she boasted about signing off on.
Harris may be unable to shake off her responsibility for recent failures, but she has proven able to shed points in critical swing states.
The Times' swing-state polling averages suggested the two candidates are now tied in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina. Harris supposedly has a three-point edge in Wisconsin, a two-point edge in Michigan, and a one-point lead in Pennsylvania.
Last week's YouGov/CBS News poll indicated that Harris and Trump were tied in Pennsylvania and that the Democrat had a two- and one-point lead in Wisconsin and Michigan, respectively.
The Times/Siena poll also acknowledged that Trump is more popular now than polling data suggested he was previously ahead of both the 2016 and 2020 elections. Overall, 46% of likely voters said they had a somewhat or very favorable view of Trump. By way of comparison, 45% of likely voters said the same of Harris.
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told Newsweek in a statement, "Polling shows President Trump is dominating both nationally and in the battleground states because voters want a return to pro-America policies that actually work, not the weak, failed, and dangerously liberal policies of Comrade Kamala."
The Trump campaign noted, "We continue to see a sustained pattern of President Trump overperforming with black voters (17-74 among registered voters; Trump +5 compared to 2020 exits and Harris running 13 points behind Biden) and Hispanic voters (42-51 among registered voters; Trump +10 compared to 2020 exits and Harris running 14 points behind Biden)."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
New York Times Celebrates Democrats Adding ‘Weird’ To Neverending ‘Racist’ And ‘Sexist’ Smears
A writer at the New York Times is elated that Democrats have come to 'name-calling' in the presidential race.Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com