A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

[For the journal (guidelines, focus, etc.), go to www.theamericandissident.org ].
Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia.

More P. Maudit cartoons (and essays) at Global Free Press: http://www.globalfreepress.org

Monday, February 18, 2019

Renee Loth

What Is a Journalist?
The fundamental flaw in journalist Renee Loth’s Boston Globe op-ed, “Julian Assange may be a hero to some, but he’s no journalist,” is its failure to define what precisely constitutes a journalist.  Does  egregious bias define journalist?    

Loth argues, “Full stop, please. Assange is many things: swashbuckling egotist, gleeful disrupter of the status quo, unwanted guest of the Ecuadorean government holed up in its London embassy. But a hard-working journalist he is not.”  

Does Loth believe that disrupting the corrupt “status quo” is a bad thing—is something “hard-working” journalists do not do/are not supposed to do?  Well, it seems so.  Ideology can blind  journalists like her to the point where they cannot see their faults, even when egregious.  A journalist like her ought to avoid using highly-subjective terms like “egotist.”  Journalists should stick to facts, reason, objectivity, and equality of treatment (e.g., for blacks and whites/for Democrats and Republicans).  

Loth argues, “Quite apart from the question of whether the United States should prosecute Assange for publishing classified government documents — and I think it would set a dangerous precedent at a time when press freedoms are under attack by the president himself — we need to draw some distinctions between his methods and those of mainstream reporters.”

Well, what about Hillary’s egregious, unpunished lying about the way how she handled classified government documents and the highly dubious nature of her foundation?  Equality under the law?  Equality in the eyes of so-called journalists?  Moreover, perhaps Trump is justified in attacking the highly-biased journalists who constantly attack him.  

Loth argues, “WikiLeaks receives and distributes raw data, some of it damaging personal information of no legitimate public interest, and then sits back and enjoys the fallout.”  And yet who defines what constitutes “no legitimate public interest”?  The Democrat Party?  Journalist shills for the Democrat Party?  The concept of “public interest” is highly nebulous and can be highly partisan indeed.  Loth ought to know that!  And if she does then why does she not mention it?  

At least Loth stipulates a fact, though reluctantly:  “Although Assange is a hero to many who advocate government transparency, and although he won Australia’s highest journalism honor in 2011, to my (admittedly old-school) mind, he’s an activist.”  Does part of that old-school mind include biased reporting?  Are not most of the journalists at the Boston Globe essentially “activists” for the Democrat Party?  After all, the Globe openly endorsed Hillary!  How can journalists who endorse one political candidate over another possibly be objective?  Isn’t Loth an “activist” against Trump?  Loth seems to argue that journalists who are “activists” are not journalists.  In that sense, she self-incriminates! 

Loth argues, “Assange doesn’t generally do the tedious work of cross-checking documents, interviewing sources, seeking official responses, and providing expert analysis. That isn’t the WikiLeaks model.”  Well, apparently, it isn’t the Boston Globe model either.  Cite Assistant Editor Renee Graham’s highly racist rant against the white teenagers of Covington Catholic High School (see https://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2019/01/renee-graham.html).  Did Graham bother to do any research at all?  In fact, it seems she purposefully ignored the research done by others and stands by her highly faulty account even today.  No apology at all was ever issued!   

Loth states, “Yes, WikiLeaks has been declared a media organization by a tribunal in the United Kingdom, strengthening the claim that Assange deserves protections afforded working journalists, but US laws regarding press freedom are different from Britain’s.”  And yet why should judges have the power to decide whether or not one is a journalist?  Loth ought to have posed that very question.  Corrupt, highly-biased judges exist!  Why should they have the right to make such a determination?  

Loth concludes, “This has been a brutal few weeks in a brutal decade for journalism."  Well, it has also been a brutal decade for free-speech advocates, due partially to journalists like Loth and Graham who choose to ignore their struggle and not report on their many stories.  Amazingly, no result  on the Boston Globe website appeared, for example, when I plugged in “elisabeth sabaditsch-wolff.”  Do Globe journalists like Loth even know who she is?  And if not, why not?

Loth argues, “The tactics employed by Assange — which blur or eliminate the lines between news, propaganda, activism, and spying — only embolden true authoritarian regimes to imprison, torture, and kill journalists. Let’s focus on protecting them.”  Again, those tactics are employed by Loth, Graham, and other so-called journalists of the Boston Globe.  Let them clean up their act before criticizing others for doing what they do!  Rather than focusing on protecting journalists, perhaps journalists ought to focus on eliminating their egregious biases and need for constant self-congratulations.  They ought to focus on facts and reason and not oppose facts and reason when facts and reason counter biases.  The Globe would not publish my challenge of Graham’s highly faulty reportage.  It will surely not publish my challenge of Loth’s either.  

And so again, we are left with the highly nebulous term, journalist.  What is a journalist?  Loth fails to define the term…

Friday, January 25, 2019

Renee Graham

Black Racists with Press Badges

Black Racism Thrives—Two Wrongs (Somehow) Make a Right in PC-landia
[Well, of course, the Boston Globe refused to publish this letter to the editor.  After all, it is not an anti-Trump screed like those regurgitated weekly by its assistant editor/columnist Renee Graham.  Far too many journalists cannot bear truths that counter their ideological bent, which is why many Americans today rightfully view them negatively. As far as I am aware, Graham NEVER apologized for her shameful op-ed!]  

Why does the Boston Globe continue to provide a platform for blatant racist and incessant anti-white stereotyper Renee Graham?  That in itself served to diminish the press and enhance the thought that it had indeed become the enemy of the people.  After all, wasn’t racism an enemy of the people?  And if so, then backing, via paycheck and job, a racist like Graham certainly supported that very notion!    

In her latest column, “White America, come get your children,” Graham stated:  “Of course, President Trump is defending those smug white teenagers who mocked a Native American man last week at an indigenous people’s march in Washington, D.C.”  Surprisingly, or perhaps not, Graham chose to ignore new information that essentially and clearly disproved that the white teenagers were the aggressors!  

The problem with a racist ideologue like Graham is that facts and reason become entirely immaterial whenever they counter the narrative; in Graham’s case, white bad/black good.  For her and those like her, freedom of expression, as in wearing a red Trump hat, is not a basic human right, but rather an expression of racism.  How, one must wonder, could Graham actually ignore the blatant hatred and violent racist taunts of those black adult males directed against those white teenagers, who did not utter any racist words at all?   

“Look at all these dusty ass crackers with that racist garbage on.  Look at these dirty ass crackers.  Can’t stand in the sun for 5 minutes.”  
“Y’all dirty-ass little crackers, your day is coming.”
“A bunch of incest babies!  A bunch of babies made out of incest!” 
“Yall got one nigger in the crowd!”   
“I’m warning you nigger!”  
“Why you got all these cracker hats on and your coon ass wanna fight your brothers?”
“You nigga, you nigga with all these racist-ass crackers with red hats on…” 

Even left-wing SPLC argued that those blacks are “obsessed with hatred for whites and Jews.”  Might Graham be one of them?  After all, isn’t she obsessed?  “Like a white hood, that cap represents a provocation and a threat,” she stated.  In other words, anybody who voted for Trump was somehow akin to a KKK member.  Yet doesn’t Graham mirror the opposite:  a black supremacist?  “And, yes, I do equate MAGA gear with traditional Klan attire,” she emphasized.  How had a woman so “obsessed with hatred for whites” ever rise to the position of Globe assistant editor?  Affirmative Action?
“Since the teens are white, they’re being infantilized…,” argued Graham.  And so somehow ALL white teens are infantilized.  How does Graham know?  Where are the statistics?  “It’s also now known that Phillips is a Vietnam veteran who served in the Marines,” she stated.  Yet in reality who cares what he did in the early 1970s?  Besides, Phillips had not served in Vietnam and seemed to be a serial liar.  Why didn’t Graham do a little research prior to coming to such erroneous conclusions?  “Nathan Phillips’s Interview with CNN Is Full of Falsehoods, Inconsistencies, and Nonsense,” noted David French of the National Review.  Ah, perhaps that magazine is a wing of the KKK?  Moreover, nobody but a blind ideologue could look at the long-version video and argue that those students had approached Phillips. 

“Each day, we pay dearly, and the costs to a nation which imprudently ignores racism and excuses racists becomes exponentially higher,” stated Graham.  Sadly, she and so many others like her choose to ignore “racism”… whenever it concerned black hatred against whites.  “To indict these terrible boys,” Graham concluded, “swathes of white America must indict itself, and the racist viciousness they’ve passed on to their children like a warped heirloom.”  Well, perhaps privileged columnists like her ought to indict themselves for passing on their own “racist viciousness” to their black children.  Clearly, Graham seeks to increase the great racial divide in America, as opposed to trying to diminish it…  

[I'd sent Graham and the Globe a different counter op-ed last year.  Nobody responded.  It can be found here:  http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2018/04/renee-graham.html.]