The American Mind

William Hillman

(8/2020) Have newspapers always been just propaganda sheets?

Individuals, companies, and organizations who have donated personal protection products like masks, face shields, and gloves to the Police during the Covid-19 epidemic are now considered enemies of the people who should be publicly shamed and are in need of re-education. The police are the enemy and people who help the police are also the enemy.

The above was the takeaway of a July 19th article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, titled "Philly companies donated thousands to fund the police. The left want them to stop." The agenda of the reporter, Christian Hetrick, was clear. He was encouraging the radical left to take action against the companies and individuals who donated 50,000 KN-95 masks to the police. And it’s working. The University of Pennsylvania and Temple University said they will cease any support of the Philadelphia Police.

A week prior, the Inquirer ran a front-page story titled, Black and Blue, 190 Years of Police Brutality. The story was filled with questionable substance. One example of police brutality was the defeat of Rep. Hardy Williams in the democratic primary. This was considered racist because Hardy Williams was the first black candidate. I know what you are thinking, but no there were no allegations of police intimidation at the polls. There are many legitimate citations of police brutality, but the article is filled with questionable examples.

The message is clear. The police are bad, always have been, always will be. All police are bad simply because of the fact that they chose to be police.

There is a war against police, and it will not end well for anyone. The news media, which claims to be honorable and unbias, is little more than a tool of those who want to divide and destroy this nation.

The New York Times has masqueraded as an honest news outlet, but in reality is filled with mind-numb zombies.

In case you missed it, writer and editor, Bari Weiss, resigned from the New York Times citing the culture of censoring both centrist and conservative opinions whilst claiming she faced "unlawful discrimination" and a "hostile work environment." I would never call Bari Weiss a conservative, she is defiantly a moderate and centrist. Her letter gave insight into internal New York Times communications – including staff communication wherein Weiss said her name was placed next to axe emojis. She also cited evidence of institutional-level anti-Semitism at the paper.

Because of column length restraints, what follows is a condensed version of her letter. Please do yourself a favor and read the entire letter online. Here is a abridged version of his letter:

"It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

"I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

"But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

"My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m "writing about the Jews again." Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned company-wide …….New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

"Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

"Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times.

"What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

"Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired.

"It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed "fell short of our standards."

"The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its "diversity"; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

"Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the "new McCarthyism" that has taken root at the paper of record.

"All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers."

At its heart, the NY Times has always been a divisive paper, still managed by the same family who owned slaves and supported slavery. The following quote is from one of the many articles supporting the suppression of African Americans. On May 10th, 1900, the paper, under its banner of "all the news fit to print", printed: "The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks." The Times also roared on page six, calling "barriers against negro suffrage" a consequence of "wiser counsel."