New York Times refers to regular women as 'non-transgender women,' causing massive backlash



A New York Times writer is facing substantial criticism after referring to biological women as "non-transgender women."

The author was discussing testosterone levels and men in women's sports, particularly San Jose State University's male volleyball player Blaire (Brayden) Fleming, who plays on the SJSU women's volleyball team.

At 6'1'', Fleming possesses obvious strength and athletic advantages over women, a fact that has been noticed by countless athletes who have shared the court with him. This includes teammate Brooke Slusser, who told Blaze News that Fleming's "power" was something she had "never seen before."

Fleming's inclusion has caused the following schools to forfeit matches: Boise State (twice), Nevada, Southern Utah, Utah State, and Wyoming.

'This is so insulting to the billions of women in the world.'

New York Times writer Juliet Macur declined to name the athlete, however, citing that "she" has not "publicly confirmed her identity and declined an interview request."

The most contentious part of the article came when the author was discussing the NCAA's rules surrounding hormone levels and the inclusion of transgender athletes.

The excerpt, which has angered many women, reads as follows:

On its website, the N.C.A.A. says trans volleyball players are eligible to play if their testosterone level is less than 10 nanomoles per liter — that's at least four times more than what many experts say is the top of the range for non-transgender women, and in the typical range for adult men.

This reference to women as "non-transgender," as if men who believe they are women or receive surgeries to appear as a woman are indeed the norm, set off a firestorm with actual women online.

British Olympian Sharron Davies said she felt this was evidence that transgenderism is a "men's rights movement."

"Women are now Non transgender women! Just wow! How anyone can say this isn't a men's rights movement I'll never know, whilst women lose their rights, their words, their safeguards, their sports, their sex discrimination laws ... I will never understand."

Tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who even has "#VoteBlue" on her X profile, took great offense to the excerpt:

"[New York Times] you stink. We are women, not NOT TRANSGENDER WOMEN. Just WOMEN will do in the future."

Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace simply called the article "bs," while Chaya Raichik said through her popular account Libs of TikTok that she felt insulted.

"Hey [New York Times], I'm not a 'non-transgender woman.' I'm a woman. Adult human female. This is so insulting to the billions of women in the world."

Many other "non-transgender" women took shots at the outlet, with some simply calling the publication "a joke."

New York Times is a joke.
— Ruthless World 🇺🇲 (@Ruthlessworld2) December 1, 2024

Another woman said the New York Times had made itself "irrelevant" with this kind of verbiage, while a woman named Katie said the language contributed to the "erasure of women."

They have made themselves completely irrelevant. No one cares what @nytimes says about anything.
— Elaine 🇺🇸 (@sweetdreamdairy) December 1, 2024

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

'Very stupid': New York Times beclowns itself with botched 'fact-check,' proving RFK Jr.'s point



Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Health and Human Services secretary, has pledged to "Make America Healthy Again" primarily by tackling the "chronic disease epidemic" and the corporate capture of federal regulatory agencies.

The environmental lawyer's adjacency to the Republican president and his recent criticism of experimental gene therapies have made him a frequent target for criticism by lawmaking recipients of Big Pharma lobbying money and the liberal media. In their efforts to dunk on Kennedy, establishmentarians have in many cases exposed their true loyalties as well as their aversion to inconvenient facts.

The New York Times is now among the outfits that has risked such exposure in its desperation to characterize Kennedy as "wrong."

'The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens.'

By attempting to miss a point that Kennedy was making in a recent interview, the Times' Christina Jewett and Julie Creswell unwittingly defended his thesis. Critics have since descended upon the liberal publication, mocking it over its botched fact-check.

At the outset of their article, titled "Kennedy’s Vow to Take On Big Food Could Alienate His New G.O.P. Allies," Jewett and Creswell wrote, "Boxes of brightly colored breakfast cereals, vivid orange Doritos and dazzling blue M&Ms may find themselves under attack in the new Trump administration."

After highlighting why food titans that produce unhealthy products are "nervous" about the incoming administration, Jewett and Creswell tried nitpicking through some of Kennedy's concerns, zeroing in on his recent remarks about the ingredients of Kellogg's Froot Loops cereal.

In September, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) moderated a four-hour round table discussion on Capitol Hill about American health and nutrition.

During her presentation, Vani Hari, a critic of the food industry who founded FoodBabe, shared the ingredient lists for multiple food products in the U.S. versus in Europe and stressed the need for limits on additives and dyes in breakfast cereals.

Together with Jason Karp, founder and CEO of the healthy living organization HumanCo., Hari highlighted the color difference between the Froot Loops cereal produced for American consumption and the version produced for consumption in Canada.

The brighter artificial colors are more attractive to children — and helpful with sales — but apparently harmful to their health.

Hari recently told Blaze News:

The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens. There are safer colors available made from fruits and vegetables, such as beets and carrots. Food companies already don't use artificial dyes en masse in Europe because they don’t want to slap warning labels on their products that say they 'may cause adverse effects on attention in children.' If food companies like Kellogg's can reformulate their products without artificial dyes to sell in other countries, there is no reason why they can’t do that also here in America.

The food activist added, "As there are over 10,000 food additives approved for use in the United States, while Europe only allows 400, the [incoming] administration should prioritize taking control of the alarming amount of food additives in our food supply."

'This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed.'

Kennedy appeared on Fox News the following day and referenced Hari's presentation, saying, "A box of Froot Loops from Canada or from Europe ... has a completely different group of ingredients. It's actually colored with vegetable oils, which are safe. Ours are colored with chemical oils, which are very, very dangerous."

Following the election, Kennedy revisited the example in a MSNBC interview, saying offhand, "Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients, and you go to Canada and it's got two or three?"

The Times seized on Kennedy's critique of Froot Loop, writing:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada's has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used "for freshness," according to the ingredient label.

In the same paragraph that the Times claimed Kennedy was wrong about Froot Loops having more artificial ingredients in Canada than in the U.S., the liberal publication effectively pointed out he was right on the money.

According to the National Library of Medicine, butylated hydroxytoluene — used as a preservative in fats and oils as well as in packaging material for fat-containing foods — has been shown in animal studies to increase serum cholesterol, reduce growth in baby rats, and increase absolute liver weight. The NLM and the Canadian government also recognize BHT as harmful to the environment.

Red dye 40 is made from petroleum and has been approved by the FDA for use in food and drinks. It has been linked in some studies to hyperactivity disorders in children. The Cleveland Clinic indicated that red dye 40 also has various potential side effects, including depression, irritability, and migraines.

Yellow dye 5 or tartazine is another synthetic food colorant linked to numerous adverse health effects. It is reportedly restricted in Austria and Norway owing to the allergies, asthma, skin rashes, hyperactivity, and migraines it can apparently cause.

A 2021 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Nutrition noted that blue dye 1 has been found to cause chromosomal aberrations and "was found to inhibit neurite growth and act synergistically with L-glutamic acid in vitro, suggesting the potential for neurotoxicity. This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed."

'This is beyond absurd.'

The paper noted further that having found blue dye 1 to have cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, some researchers "advise that caution must be exercised when using it for coloring food."

Children are the biggest consumers of such artificial food dyes.

Critics blasted the Times over its bizarre "fact-check," which said he was wrong then unwittingly explained why he was right.

"This is what passes for a 'fact check' at The New York Times," wrote Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. "The media lie a lot, but fortunately for us, they are also VERY stupid."

"Americans are being poisoned under the status quo food and health institutions, and regime media wants you to believe that Bobby Kennedy pushing for reform is somehow the problem. Make it make sense!" added Kirk.

Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University tweeted, "I read the paragraph multiple times yesterday, trying to make sense of what the idiot writer had written. I could only conclude that the idiot writer had written the equivalent of '2 + 2 = 5.'"

One critic quipped, "'As you see, the ingredient list is just completely identical, except the US product contains formaldehyde, cyanide, and nearly undetectable levels of saxitoxin."

"Crazy," tweeted Elon Musk.

Pershing Square Capital Management founder Bill Ackman wrote, "This is beyond absurd. The @nytimes says @RobertKennedyJr 'was wrong' about Froot Loops having too many artificial ingredients compared to its Canadian version, and then goes on to explain the artificial colorings and preservatives in the U.S. vs the Canadian version. @RobertKennedyJr is right and The NY Times is an embarrassment."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) noted, "In their defense, their comedy writers are really strong."

The Times has since blamed an "editing error" and rewritten its Orwellian paragraph to read:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many ingredients. In an interview with MSNBC on Nov. 6, he questioned the overall ingredient count: 'Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients and you go to Canada and it has two or three?' Mr. Kennedy asked. He was wrong on the ingredient count, they are roughly the same. But the Canadian version does have natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used 'for freshness, according to the ingredient label.

The New York Times' credibility has taken a massive hit in recent months and years. After all, it was an exponent of the Russian collusion hoax; falsely claimed Trump supporters killed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher; falsely reported on the basis of terrorist propaganda that Israel blew up a Gazan hospital; and suggested that the Babylon Bee, a satire website, was a "far-right misinformation site."

Despite its trouble getting the facts right, it recently teamed up with Media Matters to get BlazeTV hosts censored, citing concerns over "misinformation."

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

'Hypervaccinated' German man claims he got 217 COVID shots in 29 months with no side effects



A German man who claimed to have received 217 COVID-19 vaccinations in about two-and-a-half years said he had no adverse reactions or side effects from the shots.

The 62-year-old male from Magdeburg was "hypervaccinated," according to a report by the Lancet, which studies infectious diseases.

The study noted that the man "deliberately and for private reasons received 217 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 within a period of 29 months."

The public prosecutor in Germany actually opened an investigation into the man with allegations of possible fraud, but no charges were filed. The research group said it then submitted a request through the public prosecutor to study his DNA. It is claimed that the man then "actively and voluntarily consented to provide medical information and donate blood and saliva."

The state confirmed 130 vaccinations, and the man recorded another 108 vaccinations, which is said to have resulted in an overlap in data and a higher total.

The study also claimed that throughout the entire "hypervaccination schedule," the man did not report any vaccine side effects and didn't catch COVID. The study added that he repeatedly tested negative on antigen, PCR, and nucleocapsid tests.

As reported by Fox News, the man had his first Johnson & Johnson vaccine shot in June 2021. He then began receiving AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines before ramping up his injections in January 2022 when he received vaccine shots 13 out of 14 days and often received doses in each arm. He also got a vaccine every day for the first 12 days of February 2022.

A German man who got the COVID vaccine 217 times has thus far had 'no noticeable side effects,' and his immune health is very good.\n\nDetails:\n\n- 134 of the 217 Vaccines can be verified by third parties.\n\n- The vaccines were administered over a 29 month period.\n\n- The man is 62\u2026
— (@)

It doesn't appear that social media users in general are too excited about the man's claims, but a straggling group of supporters gave comments such as "Biden needs to invite this guy to be his guest for the State of the Union Address."

@nytimes Biden needs to invite this guy to be his guest for the State of the Union Address. It would make MTG\u2019s head explode\u2026she\u2019d go off like a howler monkey. Again.
— (@)

"He destroyed the arguments of vaccine deniers," another X user wrote.

Declaring "no conflicts of interest," the study stated that the man increased the quantity of "spike-specific antibodies and T cells without having a strong positive or negative effect on the intrinsic quality of adaptive immune responses."

"While we found no signs of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in HIM to date, it cannot be clarified whether this is causally related to the hypervaccination regimen. Importantly, we do not endorse hypervaccination as a strategy to enhance adaptive immunity," the study concluded.

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

Ron DeSantis ERUPTS into laughter when Bill Maher says THIS about Florida



Bill Maher recently invited Ron DeSantis to his show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and per usual, the anti-woke, liberal host had a long list of gotcha questions prepared.

Unsurprisingly, one subject they broached was Florida’s approach to COVID-19. Dave Rubin plays a clip of the two actually agreeing about what transpired in Florida during the pandemic.

“I think woke ideology has corrupted institutions, ... things like the CDC, with how they handled COVID,” DeSantis said.

“We’re on the same page,” Maher responded, “and I think it's unfair what they did to you because you did handle it better.”

“You were like, ‘Let’s target the people, protect the people who are most vulnerable, and everybody else can go on with their lives,’” Maher acknowledged. “You opened schools sooner, ... and they won't give you credit for that.”

“It’s not about credit for me,” DeSantis responded. “It’s about them admitting that they were wrong” because “if this happened again, they would repeat the same playbook all over again, and if we don't have accountability, that's what's going to happen.”

Maher also pointed out the absurdity of the New York Times’ “despicable hit piece” about how “Ron DeSantis f***** up the pandemic.”

At this, DeSantis breaks into a big grin.

“And then, like, at the very end, it says Florida's death rate overall was better than the national average,” continued Maher as DeSantis erupted into laughter.

“If you're gonna do an article about Florida and the pandemic, shouldn’t that be lead?” Maher asked.

“What we did is we understood you can't stop society because of one respiratory virus,” DeSantis responded.

“Here you have lefty, liberal Bill Maher who will, sadly, I think, never vote for a Republican, will never vote for DeSantis, but he at least has the balls to tell the truth,” says Dave.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'Is it safe to go outside?': New York Times scorched for 'fear-mongering' article about summer weather 'perils' that recommends face masks



The New York Times is being torched for publishing an article asking if it "safe to go outside" during "this cruel summer." Reactions online roasted the liberal news outlet for pushing "fear-mongering" content.

In its "Health" section, the New Times published an article titled: "Is It Safe to Go Outside? How to Navigate This Cruel Summer."

The article's sub-headline reads: "Heat, flooding and wildfire smoke have made for treacherous conditions. Use this guide to determine when it’s safe to head out and when you should stay home."

The article is written by Alisha Haridasani Gupta – a reporter "focused on women’s health, health inequities and trends in functional medicine and wellness."

The article sounds the alarm about this year's "summer of weather extremes in the United States, in which going outside can be riddled with perils." The NYT cites flooding in the Northeast, heatwaves across the country, and smoke from wildfires in Canada.

The NYT writer advises people to watch for flood warnings and check air quality levels before going outside.

The Times urges people, "If you must be outdoors, consider wearing an N95 mask to help reduce your exposure to toxins, Dr. Balbus said."

The New York Times tells readers, "A heat index of 103 degrees Fahrenheit and above is dangerous; you’re likely to experience heat cramps and heat exhaustion, and heat stroke is possible if you’re outside for a prolonged period or doing something strenuous, according to the National Weather Service."

The Times warns that "extreme heat leads to hundreds of fatalities a year in the U.S."

Despite warnings about heat-related deaths, studies show that more fatalities are caused by cold weather.

A 2021 study published in The Lancet Planetary Health found that for every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database stated: "During 2006-2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death. About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both; and the remaining 6% were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning."

According to The Lancet, there were 1.7 million deaths worldwide deaths from extreme temperatures in 2019 – 356,000 were related to heat and the rest were caused by cold.

A 2020 study by researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago found that 94% of temperature-related deaths were because of cold weather.

The official Twitter account for New York Times Health posted the article on social media with the caption: "So you want to go outside — despite the heat, heavy rainfall and poor air quality affecting millions this summer. Here’s how to determine whether it’s safe to leave the house."

— (@)

Reactions to the guidance on Twitter scorched the New York Times over the article instilling fear in the heads of readers and recommending face masks.

BlazeTV host Lauren Chen: "Journalists have now reached levels of neuroticism previously thought to be impossible."

Professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University Jay Bhattacharya: "Anyone taking health advice or learning epidemiology from the @nytimes will be doomed to isolation and ignorance."

Mathematician and cultural critic James Lindsay: "It's definitely safe to go outside."

DeSantis campaign researcher Kyle Lamb: "They're already back to trying to normalize lockdowns and masking for things like weather and air quality. They're desperate for control."

Public health expert Pradheep J. Shanker: "I'm not sure there is a bigger conveyor of scientific misinformation in the country right now than @NYTScience."

Writer Tom Goodwin: "The news reads very much like covid times these days. Monetizing existential dread and fear as a business model."

Lawyer Julie Hamill: "YES - it is safe to go outside. Stop fear mongering. You are enabling agoraphobia and extremely unhealthy life decisions."

College professor Wilfred Reilly: "The elite is very consciously domesticating the citizenry."

Political consultant Noah Pollak: "Liberal neurotics are desperate to find another excuse to lock themselves in their apartments."

Attorney Laura Powell: "Why has there been a concerted effort by the government and its propaganda arms to scare people into remaining in their homes? What purpose does this serve? It certainly doesn’t promote public health, as they pretend."

Writer Jennifer Sey: "Free floating fear and anxiety in search of a reason. And wanting everyone else to be as anxious as you are so it’s normal."

School social worker Justin Spiro: "The inevitable next step after years of COVID fear-mongering. The New York Times incredulously implies that leaving the house is dangerous due to the horror of... summer weather! Could you imagine such a headline in 2019?"

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

Sen. Graham joins critics calling for Pulitzer Prize given to Washington Post and New York Times to be rescinded after Durham report proved their narrative to be 'politically motivated crap'



The Pulitzer Prize board honored New York Times and Washington Post reporters with a cash prize and its once-esteemed award in 2018 for peddling the thoroughly debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which proved politically expedient for the liberal reporters' ideological comrades in Washington at the time.

In light of the damning Durham report, critics now reckon the awards to be albatrosses around the necks of those who dutifully worked to mislead the nation — put there by an organization apparently indifferent to the storm gathered as a consequence.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has joined those now urging that the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the staff at both papers be "taken back."

Graham told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Tuesday that "we have a situation where the FBI ran every stop sign available, kept pushing a warrant against an American citizen based on a Steele dossier that was a piece of fiction. The information was supplied the FBI by two Russian agents. It was used to get a warrant against an American citizen to turn his life upside down and create a cloud of the Trump presidency and try to deny him the presidency."

With the full understanding provided in the Durham report that the investigation was from the get-go a stitch-up predicated upon a false claim, originally approved and advanced by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Graham stressed that three things should happen:

First, Attorney General Merrick Garland "should pick up the phone and call all those that were harmed by this and say, 'Even though it didn't happen on my watch, I'll apologize to you. This is not the Department of Justice that I want you to believe in,'" said Graham.

Second, FBI Director Christopher Wray should "get on the phone and apologize to the people that had their lives ruined by the FBI."

Third, "the Pulitzer Prize given to the Washington Post and New York Times should be taken back because the entire episode was politically motivated crap. That's not something you should get a Pulitzer Prize for," added Graham.

Graham doubled down on this third suggestion Wednesday, tweeting, "Awarding the Washington Post and New York Times Pulitzer Prizes for reporting political fiction as fact regarding President Trump shows that these prizes are awarded not based on the product of your work, but the subject you go after. They should rescind the prize."

The awards in question went to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for what the Pulitzer Prize Board characterized as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."

The Daily Mail reported that the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post remains unrepentant.

"The Post stands by its reporting," said Jennifer Lee, a spokeswoman for the paper, citing a 2022 review by the Pulitzer board that claimed no aspect of the awarded stories "were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes."

This statement appears to indicate that false reports may be deserving of awards, just so long as the truth comes out after the receipt of the prize.

While the Washington Post evidently stands by past false narratives, the New York Times appears keen to downplay newly revealed truths.

In its Monday story on the Durham report, the Times claimed, "Mr. Durham’s 306-page report revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry," suggesting that Durham's hunt "for evidence to support Mr. Barr’s theory that intelligence abuses lurked in the origins of the Russia inquiry" had proven fruitless.

It added, "The special counsel’s final report nevertheless did not produce blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct, as Donald J. Trump and his allies had suggested it would."

TheBlaze reported in 2019 that then-President Trump said the Pulitzer committee should revoke a joint Pulitzer Prize from both newspapers "for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia."

\u201cSo funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia - And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!\u201d
— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1553901917

In response to Trump's suggestion, the New York Times wrote in a March 29, 2019, tweet, "We're proud of our Pulitzer-prize winning reporting on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Every @nytimes article cited has proven accurate."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to Twitter Monday to comment on the Durham report, writing, "Disgraceful. Obama-Biden officials and the corrupt corporate media pushed these piles of lies for years. Accountability now— starting with WaPo and The New York Times returning their Pulitzer Prizes for breathlessly spreading these ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ lies."

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) posed the question, "Ready to give your Pulitzer back now?"

\u201cReady to give your Pulitzer back now?\u201d
— Congressman Byron Donalds (@Congressman Byron Donalds) 1684186374

Sean Spicer, who served as press secretary and White House communications director under President Donald Trump, quipped, "How will the Washington Post send back its Pulitzer? USP, FedEx, UPS."

Former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones (R) wrote, "For three years the liberal media portrayed the now-infamous Steele dossier — the original basis for the Trump- Russian collusion claims — as true, and the New York Times and Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for a story that not only has been debunked but shown to be the product of Hillary’s Clinton’s presidential campaign."

The Georgia Republican suggested that it's time for the papers to issue apologies.

Graham Reacts to the Durham Report youtu.be

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

Musk calls New York Times propaganda; outlet loses Twitter verified status after refusing to pay for it



Elon Musk called the New York Times "propaganda" and its Twitter feed "diarrhea" amid the outlet refusing to pay for and subsequently losing its verified status on the platform, Reuters and other outlets reported Sunday.

"The real tragedy of @NYTimes is that their propaganda isn’t even interesting," Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeted Sunday.

Musk doubled down in a second tweet, calling the outlet's feed "unreadable" and "the Twitter equivalent of diarrhea."

\u201cAlso, their feed is the Twitter equivalent of diarrhea. It\u2019s unreadable.\n\nThey would have far more real followers if they only posted their top articles. \n\nSame applies to all publications.\u201d
— Elon Musk (@Elon Musk) 1680412564
The New York Times announced Friday that it would not pay for the verified badge for its institutional account. The outlet also said it will not reimburse reporters for Twitter Blue personal accounts, "except in rare instances where this status would be essential for reporting purposes," an NYT spokesperson told Reuters.

Twitter announced March 23 that the company would start "winding down" its legacy verified program and removing the associated check mark badges April 1.

\u201cOn April 1st, we will begin winding down our legacy verified program and removing legacy verified checkmarks. To keep your blue checkmark on Twitter, individuals can sign up for Twitter Blue here: https://t.co/gzpCcwOpLp \n\nOrganizations can sign up for https://t.co/RlN5BbuGA3\u2026\u201d
— Twitter Verified (@Twitter Verified) 1679610049
As promised, the legacy golden check mark was unceremoniously removed from the Twitter account of the "Gray Lady." On Sunday morning, the account's badge was no longer visible to its nearly 55 million viewers.

Organizations that are not currently verified will have to pony up $1,000 monthly for the golden check mark, plus $50 per month for each additional affiliate. Individual subscriptions to Twitter Blue start at $7 monthly for the badge.

The New York Times is not alone in its decision to forego fees now associated with Twitter's verification badges. The Washington Post and CNN announced they would not pay for staffers' blue check status, Politico reported Saturday.

The White House has also said it will not pay for staff's official Twitter profiles' continued verification, according to Axios.

"It is our understanding that Twitter Blue does not provide person-level verification as a service. Thus, a blue check mark will now simply serve as a verification that the account is a paid user," White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty told staffers in an email sent Friday afternoon, the outlet reported.

In his response targeting the NYT, Musk also offered some advice to other outlets.

In addition, he seemed to suggest not all the NYT's followers were legitimate. It is unclear whether Musk was suggesting some of the outlets' followers were bots, were purchased, or not "real" in some other fashion.

"They would have far more real followers if they only posted their top articles," Musk said.

"The same applies to all publications," he added.

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 torched by trans activists for 'editorial bias' in coverage of transgender, non-binary people



New York Times contributors wrote a letter to the newspaper's associate managing editor for standards on Wednesday, expressing "serious concerns" about the Times' "editorial bias" in its coverage of "transgender, non⁠-⁠binary, and gender nonconforming people," the New York Post reported.

Contributors accused the Times of treating "gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources."

The letter, addressed to Philip B. Corbett, the Times' associate managing editor for standards, was signed by nearly 200 contributors and supported by another 20,000 media workers, subscribers, and readers. Some of those prominent contributors and supporters included Lena Dunham, Cynthia Nixon, Gabrielle Union, Judd Apatow, and Jameela Jamil.

The letter argued that, by the Times' own standards, reports are supposed to "preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias" and remain "sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance."

Contributors noted that many reporters at the Times have covered transgender-related issues "fairly." However, they roasted the newspaper for publishing "over 15,000 words of front⁠-⁠page Times coverage debating the propriety of medical care for trans children published in the last eight months alone."

In particular, contributors took issue with an article by Emily Bazelon titled "The Battle Over Gender Therapy," which they lambasted for using the term "patient zero" to refer to a transgender child. They argued that the phrase "vilifies transness as a disease to be feared." Contributors also took issue with the sources Bazelon used in the article.

The letter cited the Times article, "When Students Change Gender Identity and Parents Don't Know," by Katie Baker as another example of allegedly biased reporting. They accused the piece of "misfram[ing] the battle over children's right to safely transition" and claimed that Baker failed to clarify that "court cases brought by parents who want schools to out their trans children are part of a legal strategy pursued by anti-trans hate groups."

"These groups have identified trans people as an 'existential threat to society' and seek to replace the American public education system with Christian homeschooling, key context Baker did not provide to Times readers," the letter stated.

Contributors accused the Times of "follow[ing] the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation."

In a separate effort, another 130 LGBT+ organizations signed a letter to the Times, similarly accusing the outlet of "irresponsible, biased coverage of transgender people."

The letter was hand-delivered yesterday to the Times' office in Manhattan by members of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

The organizations criticized the Times' coverage and made a list of demands, including "stop printing biased anti-trans stories;" "hold a meeting with transgender community members and leaders, and listen throughout that meeting;" and "genuinely invest in hiring trans writers and editors, full time on your staff."

Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander defended the newspaper's reporting.

"Our journalism strives to explore, interrogate and reflect the experiences, ideas and debates in society – to help readers understand them. Our reporting did exactly that and we're proud of it," Stadtlander told NPR.

\u201cWe\u2019ve had enough. We\u2019ve joined over 100 organizations and leaders to demand that @nytimes stop printing inaccurate and harmful misinformation about transgender people and issues. Today we are outside of the Times building to send a clear message. https://t.co/IkQocpsG5q\u201d
— GLAAD (@GLAAD) 1676468875

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

Mating with 'shorter people' is a 'step toward a greener planet' since smaller individuals are 'inherent conservationists,' New York Times op-ed claims



A New York Times guest opinion column published on Sunday claimed that mating with "shorter people" is a "step toward a greener planet" since smaller individuals are "inherent conservationists."

The essay by writer Mara Altman, titled "There Has Never Been a Better Time to Be Short," argued that people of shorter stature live longer and are "better" for the planet because they use fewer resources.

"The short are also inherent conservationists, which is more crucial than ever in this world of eight billion," the article stated.

Altman's essay referenced a study by Thomas Samaras, "the Godfather of Shrink Think," which found that if Americans were 10% shorter, it would "save 87 million tons of food per year (not to mention trillions of gallons of water, quadrillions of B.T.U.s of energy and millions of tons of trash)."

"Short people don't just save resources, but as resources become scarcer because of the earth's growing population and global warming, they may also be best suited for long-term survival (and not just because more of us will be able to jam into spaceships when we are forced off this planet we wrecked)," the essay continued.

According to the piece, single people should prioritize finding shorter partners.

"When you mate with shorter people, you're potentially saving the planet by shrinking the needs of subsequent generations. Lowering the height minimum for prospective partners on your dating profile is a step toward a greener planet," the article claimed.

The article referenced lecturer and artist Arne Hendriks, who "uses performance and exhibitions to encourage people to embrace fewer inches." According to Altman's piece, Hendriks does not allow his children to consume dairy and limits sugar to keep them from getting tall.

"The future I envision is different: I want my children's children to know the value of short. I want them to call themselves 'short drinks of water' with 'legs for minutes.' While one yells, 'I'm the shortest,' I hope the other will bend his knees to gain an advantage, shouting, 'No, I'm the shortest!'" the article concluded.

Twitter users relentlessly mocked the article for attributing height to climate change.

In response to the op-ed, Babylon Bee owner Seth Dillon tweeted, "Someone short and single is writing op-eds for The New York Times."

Former Virginia Rep. Scott Taylor posted on Twitter, "Very heightist of you, @nytimes."

New York Times gets universally torched over bizarre article sympathetic to FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried



The New York Times received universal scorn from critics after they published a sympathetic article about Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX.

The article by Rob Copeland documented how some residents of the Bahamas were sympathetic to the plight of the crypto-entrepreneur because he tips well and had brought many wealthy crypto investors to their island nation.

\u201cIn the U.S., Sam Bankman-Fried is persona non grata. But in interviews across the Bahamas, residents say that his crimes were hardly comparable to the gang violence of the island, and expressed fears of economic fallout if crypto investors don't return. https://t.co/aUeAnImTbT\u201d
— The New York Times (@The New York Times) 1672081804

The story was immediately excoriated by critics on social media who expressed bewilderment at the framing of what might be the biggest financial scandal in U.S. history.

"What the f*** IS this s***? Pretty hard to argue at this point that @nytimes is trying to normalize financial crime," responded crypto columnist David Morris.

"What even is this take??? The guy who stole billions as part of a ponzi scheme wasn't that bad because are other crimes in the Bahamas and some people associated with FTX tipped delivery drivers well?" said another critic.

"Oh my God this is real," replied Democratic strategist Neera Tanden.

"If you ever want to show someone how American journalism’s concern about crime is itself an ideology you might compare this article to say, how the New York Times covers destitute people stealing from Walgreens," responded criminal defense attorney David Menschel.

"NYT: forget about the economic fallout of rich people crimes and focus on the economic fallout of poor people crimes, even though poor people crimes are often the economic fallout of rich people crimes," read another critical tweet.

Bankman-Fried was arrested and extradited to the United States for numerous fraud crimes involving the implosion of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange. His girlfriend Caroline Ellison pled guilty to related charges and is cooperating with the government over her role in running Alameda Research, the privately controlled hedge fund at the center of the financial scandal.

Bankman-Fried was once estimated to be worth $16 billion. He was released on $250 million bail while awaiting trial.

Here's more about the collapse of FTX:

The FTX Collapse, Explained | What Went Wrong | WSJwww.youtube.com