Standing Up For America

Journalists adopt lefty language

Share It
Tweet It

Want to post your comments? Hit Subscribe to register for a free account - then post your comments!

Journalists adopt lefty language
The better to promote government control of everything
SEP 25
Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post reported, “Misinformation research is buckling under GOP legal attacks.
“An escalating campaign, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans, has cast a pall over programs that study political disinformation and the quality of medical information online.”
By misinformation research, the Bezos Post meant censorship.
By political disinformation, the Bezos Post meant Republicans telling the truth about such lies as the Russian dossier.
By the quality of medical information online, the Bezos Post meant mocking treatments that work on covid (such as ivermectin) and promoting actions that failed to stop the virus (such as wearing a cloth mask or standing six feet apart).
The Bezos Post credited Congressman Jordan with the push back. That’s big win for him.
The paper said, “The National Institutes of Health froze a $150 million program intended to advance the communication of medical information, citing regulatory and legal threats. Physicians told The Post that they had planned to use the grants to fund projects on noncontroversial topics such as nutritional guidelines and not just politically charged issues such as vaccinations that have been the focus of the conservative allegations.
“NIH officials sent a memo in July to some employees, warning them not to flag misleading social media posts to tech companies and to limit their communication with the public to answering medical questions.”
Poor babies. $150 million? How much of that money was earmarked to pay off Big Social Media?
The programs that the Bezos Post championed whither in court because the First Amendment protects disinformation, misinformation and hate speech. Indeed, those are reasons we have free speech because the government censors the truth, not lies.
If the government censored lies, the entire newspaper industry would collapse in a pile of yellowed clippings because they lie all the time now.
For example, on Saturday, I was minding my own business when the LA Times reported, “Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday vetoed a bill that would have asked judges presiding over custody battles to take into consideration a parent’s support for their child’s gender identity — a culture war flashpoint that has drawn vocal criticism from the right.”
As an old newspaperman, I was amused by the phrase “a cultural war flashpoint.”
That means a lefty idea that has lefties bailing.
Further down, LAT admitted this, reporting, “The bill has drawn criticism and sparked controversy, including among conservatives who claimed it would force parents who do not support their child’s gender identity to give up custody rights.”
Ah, “including among conservatives” means liberals, too, have reservations about the wisdom of going so far so fast. Oh, eventually they want to re-assign everyone’s sex, but that takes time. Incrementalism is the key when destroying a society.
Another phrase that needs translation is “conservatives who claimed.” Whenever conservatives are right, newspapermen state it as fact. Journalists throw shade on any truth that makes libs look bad.
(“Without evidence” is another phrase that helps journalists throw shade.)
Fact-checking the claim is easy. The bill says, “This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.”
So all other factors being equal, going along with the child’s sexual confusion would determine custody rights. And of course this enables to use affirmation, as they call caving in, as a tool to deny custody, something the law obviously does not now support. If it did, there would be no need for this law.
The LA Times lied about the law, but that is par for the course. When a newspaper double eagles, it gets a Pulitzer. The best example are the Pulitzers that went to the Bezos post and NYT for lying about Putin fixing the election for Trump. That lie is so deeply embedded that it will be the talk of people on Mars in 4000 AD, when they study the fall of Ancient America.
Florida newspapers lied about the Parental Rights In Education law. They reported it as the Don’t Say Gay law, sometimes in quotes and often attributing it to critics, who never were named. The law calls for age-appropriate sex education, something we all thought we agreed to when we allowed sex ed in schools two generations ago.
Transgender is a euphemism for transvestite. Today’s journalists say sex does not determine gender but they also say changing one’s secondary sexual characteristics affirms gender. I never said journalists made sense.
Along those lines, journalists also refer to the castration and mutilation of children as gender-affirming care. It is like calling abortion health care. Gender-affirming care not only sterilizes the victim but causes all sorts of other medical problems. Hormone blockers also are described this way, but they stunt growth and can lead to osteoporosis.
These same journalists earlier joined the FDA in dismissing ivermectin as horse paste. By horse paste, the FDA meant an off-the-shelf and effective treatment for covid. But admitting that would mean the vaccines the FDA was helping Big Pharma develop would have to undergo testing on people before approving its use. So the zFD lied and the press never questioned those lies.
The result was a mandate of a vaccine that neither protected the vaccinated nor stopped the spread of covid. This is widely known now. No journalist in America will dare dig out the truth and report it for another generation because journalists now comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.
Journalists always side with the government and authorities, except for the few who are conservatives.
NYT reported, “Book Bans Are Rising Sharply in Public Libraries.”
There are exactly zero books banned in America. The best the left can do is come up with a list of what they call challenged books, which is literature people object to. NYT buys into the lefty American Library Association equating people complaining about children being able to read pornography with book bans. Here’s a page from Gender Queer.
Much of the news speak newspeak is obvious. Readers already know that lefty riots are called mostly peaceful protests, while conservative mostly peaceful protests are labeled insurrections.
Readers also know that requiring a photo ID to vote is called voter suppression. Journalists never refer to requiring a photo ID to buy beer as drinker suppression. Likewise, requiring a photo ID to buy cigarettes is never called smoker suppression.
Then there are deniers and denials. This is an outgrowth of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, when he was president of Iran, denying there was a Holocaust. The press blew him off as a Holocaust denier and the public accepted that as a term of disparagement.
Lefties got the brilliant idea of calling all the opposition deniers. Now the press labels people climate deniers as if people refuse to believe that there are deserts, rainforests and tundra.
Then there are white supremacists, a phrase dug up from the segregationist past to describe what the left and the newspapers once dismissed as Nazis and then neo-Nazis until both of those labels wore out their welcome. White supremacists died with George Wallace. When he finally passed away, the press lauded Bob Byrd and brushed aside his white supremacist days as a youthful indiscretion. He was 46 when he filibustered against civil rights.
Freedom of speech protects journalism’s lies from censorship but it does not mean we must believe them.
Once upon a time, the press stood up for free speech because liberals were the outsiders. Now liberals hold power and journalists oppose free speech.
The American media is the megaphone of the deep state and has been for a long time, beginning with getting rid of Dick Nixon less than two years after his 49-state landslide.
In that first story I referred to, the Bezos Post reported, “Conservatives have long complained that social media platforms stifle their views, but the efforts to limit moderation have intensified in the past year.
“The most high-profile effort, a lawsuit known as Missouri v. Biden, is now before the Supreme Court, where the Biden administration seeks to have the high court block a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that found the White House, FBI and top federal health officials likely violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies’ decisions to remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections. That ruling was narrower than a district court’s finding that also barred government officials from working with academic groups, including the Stanford Internet Observatory. But the Biden Justice Department argues the injunction still contradicts certain First Amendment principles, including that the president is entitled to use his bully pulpit to persuade American companies ‘to act in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest.’”
Biden did not use the bully pulpit. He use government extortion and taxpayer money to get social media to censor the truth about his bribery and corruption. He now uses the courts to punish Elon Musk for buying Twitter and stopping it as an outlet for government lies.
The Bezos Post never used the argument about a president’s First Amendment rights when Twitter banned President Trump from its platform.
Bezos made his billions by starting a company in his garage that sold books online. A well-read man surely knows the value of free speech. His embrace of censorship shows that to be successful, journalists only have to fool one person — their owner.