Jetty Jumper

Liberals haunted by social media tactics they use against the right

Rate this topic

132 posts in this topic

Interesting,holding the self righteous to their own standards is an attack on the 1st.

By Madison Gesiotto, opinion contributor — The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
The people who have made an industry out of destroying ordinary people’s lives over old social media posts and out-of-context comments are very upset that it’s happening to them. The New York Times, clearly worried by the recent exposure of blatantly anti-Semitic tweets posted by one of its reporters, and clearly worried that even more embarrassing material is in reserve, tried to stop the hemorrhaging with a rambling article demonizing the independent journalists who uncovered the tweets.
In fact, much of the liberal media sphere went into panic mode, vehemently declaring that this particular exercise of the First Amendment is actually an attack on the First Amendment. The reason why liberal editors are so distraught that independent conservative journalists are publishing evidence of the racist, anti-Semitic, and otherwise vile sentiments expressed by their supposedly “objective” employees comes down — as it usually does — to power.
Many journalists are in the profession not to inform the public, but to gain the power to destroy people who question them — and they don’t like those tactics being turned against them. “sing journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations ... is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power,” the Times wrote in its article — which was of course labeled “news,” not “opinion.”
The newspaper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, added that “the political operatives behind this campaign will argue that they are ‘reporting’ on news organizations in the same way that news organizations report on elected officials and other public figures,” but he roundly rejected that claim, insisting that his antagonists are trying to “manipulate the facts for political gain.”
To their credit, not everyone in the elite media world is buying it. Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and Jack Shafer of Politico both wrote rebukes of the Times’s indignation. Neither is a conservative “political operative,” but both found Sulzberger’s statement hypocritical and incongruent with the Times’s own reporting on this story. As Wemple put it, “For decades now, representatives of the mainstream media have answered conservative critiques by imploring: Judge us by the work we produce, not by the fact that more than 90 percent of us are liberal/Democratic. Mainstreamers cannot have it both ways.”
Considering that the Times recently held a staff meeting at which employees strategized over how best to undermine President Trump, Sulzberger doesn’t have much standing to complain about media bias. Clearly, he thinks that his journalists deserve special privileges and protections because the targets of their attacks are so important.
Yet, the media outlets The New York Times is painting as victims used out-of-context video clips to claim that a group of teenage boys from a Catholic high school in Kentucky engaged in a racist attack on an innocent Native American Vietnam veteran. The story was a complete lie — fabricated by left-wing activists and circulated by some of the country’s most “prestigious” newspapers. They did it because those teenagers wore MAGA hats — and in the sick, twisted minds of today’s liberal journalists, that makes them and their families legitimate targets.
CNN, which the Times also portrays as a victim, went after an obscure social media user for making a meme of the president wrestling a figure with CNN’s logo. The Daily Beast, another left-wing outlet, once doxxed a black forklift driver because he posted a meme about “drunk Nancy Pelosi.”
Most hypocritical of all, however, is HuffPost editor-in-chief — and New York Times alumna — Lydia Polgreen. She called the prospect of journalists being held to the same standards as their targets “extremely alarming,” hypocritically arguing this “should worry anyone who cares about independent journalism” — even though people now being attacked by the establishment media are acting as independent journalists.
In the mind of leftist journalists, destroying people’s lives is “speaking truth to power” and “independent journalism.” It’s not. It’s a pure, shameless abuse of power by those who have it against those who don’t. It’s a deliberate exploitation of the far-left hate mobs that Big Tech still allows to organize on social media, even as the tech giants ban conservative users for “harassment” when they criticize journalists.
Just recently, The New York Times complained to a professor’s employer about a tweet referring to one of its high-profile columnists as a “bedbug.” The liberal media have made an art form out of digging up controversial tweets in order to attack ordinary Americans who support President Trump, and now that they’re being given a dose of their own medicine, they’ve discovered that they don’t like the taste. What goes around comes around, though, and those who live by the social media “gotcha” game shouldn’t be surprised if their eventual undoing comes by the same means.
Madison Gesiotto is an attorney and a commentator who serves with the advisory board of the Donald Trump campaign. She was an inauguration spokesperson and former Miss Ohio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the New York times complain to the professor's employers, or did the journalist who was called a bedbug complain, and Cc the professor's employer on the email?

 

I doubt you realize (I think you just cut and paste shoddy stories that support your world view) that the journalist who whined about being called a bedbug is not a liberal. Bret Stephens is his name. Like a typical conservative he whined a river of tears. 

 

I often wonder how the righties are so divorced from reality, they will just cut n paste any article they find, and think they have proven a point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the press fall apart in my lifetime has been painful.  Watching the country fall apart into two armed camps that despise each other has been worse.  The two are tied together IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 mins ago, MikeM58 said:

Watching the press fall apart in my lifetime has been painful.  Watching the country fall apart into two armed camps that despise each other has been worse.  The two are tied together IMO.

honestly I don't despise actual conservatives.

 

I do hate racist White Supremacists and the "alt right" crowd. 

 

there was a time not that long ago when the two sides could have a fairly friendly discussion.... (right here on SOL)

but toxic trolls took over..... suddenly if you stated an opinion someone didn't agree with you were a "scummy liar"

if you questioned a military action you were a "troop spitter" 

all attacks were escalated into an unreasonable degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

 toxic trolls took over..... suddenly if you stated an opinion someone didn't agree with you were a "scummy liar"

if you questioned a military action you were a "troop spitter" 

all attacks were escalated into an unreasonable degree.

Or you were a "knuckle dragger" or mouth breather for supporting the right.  I agree that all attacks are "esculated into an unreasonable degree".  For sheer volume, this site leans to the right, so there are more example of the right doing it here,  In terms of degree, the left doesn't have much to brag about on this site either.  Politics has always been a dirty sport, but it's out of control these days. Just my opinion.

Edited by MikeM58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fish'nmagician said:

honestly I don't despise actual conservatives.

 

I do hate racist White Supremacists and the "alt right" crowd. 

 

there was a time not that long ago when the two sides could have a fairly friendly discussion.... (right here on SOL)

but toxic trolls took over..... suddenly if you stated an opinion someone didn't agree with you were a "scummy liar"

if you questioned a military action you were a "troop spitter" 

all attacks were escalated into an unreasonable degree.

St Breivik preserve us! The troll is complaining about getting trolled! Sounds a LOT like the whiny bolsheviks in the OP's article. What has this world come to? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s rich coming from the guy who argues that if one does not denounce what HE sees as racist behavior, means you condone that behavior and are therefore a racist too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Livefreeordie said:

Did the New York times complain to the professor's employers, or did the journalist who was called a bedbug complain, and Cc the professor's employer on the email?

 

I doubt you realize (I think you just cut and paste shoddy stories that support your world view) that the journalist who whined about being called a bedbug is not a liberal. Bret Stephens is his name. Like a typical conservative he whined a river of tears. 

 

I often wonder how the righties are so divorced from reality, they will just cut n paste any article they find, and think they have proven a point?

See, if you had any sense of the story, you would know that Stephens is a house token Conservative at the Times. He has complained for some time about ankle biters in Twitter trying to shout down whatever he wrote about in his last column. Apparently, when the George Washington University professor observed that "The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens", Stephens, missed the metaphor part (he being a trespasser in what should be a pure liberal NY Times) and took it personally. 

 

And thats what happens with the self-centered types who work in the Media. Stephens is a NeverTrumper and an elitist whose role at the Times is to give it a semblance of being balanced. Like Brooks, he’s a sometimes conservative who is more a progressive with libertarian flavors mixed in, but an elitist at heart. And therein lies the irony. That such people use their papers and shows and social media accounts to vilify, mock and otherwise attack others, but then scream bloody murder if anyone dares to subject them to the same treatment. 

 

But that is just the Stephens part, maybe you missed the rest of the cut and paste. Maybe you missed the others journalists who are complaining because they find their own social media pasts being sifted for misspeak and harmful words to a certain ear. The Left has been doing this for a very long time, looking decades into the past of their enemies to find something with which to attack them today.

 

And now, that people from the Right are deploying the same tactic, the Media is up in arms as they are being the ones out under pressure for some idiocy said 20+ years ago. Their claims that they should be above receiving such attacks is laughable given their use of such tactics. And it shows the same thin skin that Trump has exposed, and it shows a moral rot underneath, a holier than thou worldview where they are too above the fray to be mocked and ridiculed. 

 

Yes, Alinsky's fourth rule being used against those who have used that rule for decades.

 

You did read the whole paste, right???  

 

 

 

About Stephens, from The New Yorker:

 

The drama began on Monday, when a Times editor announced to the Internet that the newsroom had become infested with bedbugs. Tweets were tweeted and jokes were made, including by GWU associate professor David Karpf who wrote: “The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens.” The jab didn’t get much traction at first, and Stephens’ handle wasn’t mentioned in the tweet, but it somehow got the columnist’s attention. “I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face,” Stephens wrote in an email to the professor and his provost in what he later insisted on MSNBC was not an attempt to get his antagonist in professional trouble.

Naturally, Stephens’ sensitivity sent Twitter into overdrive. For most of the day Tuesday the scoffing came primarily from the left, which tends to regard Stephens—a self-styled conservative intellectual with a penchant for using his platform to whine about his free-speech rights being infringed upon by millennials—as an overpaid buffoon. But Trump, who was embroiled in a bedbug controversy of his own Tuesday, eventually chimed in:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tomkaz said:

That’s rich coming from the guy who argues that if one does not denounce what HE sees as racist behavior, means you condone that behavior and are therefore a racist too. 

Are you making stuff up again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, fish'nmagician said:

honestly I don't despise actual conservatives.

 

I do hate racist White Supremacists and the "alt right" crowd. 

 

there was a time not that long ago when the two sides could have a fairly friendly discussion.... (right here on SOL)

but toxic trolls took over..... suddenly if you stated an opinion someone didn't agree with you were a "scummy liar"

if you questioned a military action you were a "troop spitter" 

all attacks were escalated into an unreasonable degree.

Scummy liar.  Your the most toxic troll here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, JimG said:

Scummy liar.  Your the most toxic troll here.

because the definition of troll has changed....

 

It used to be used to identify an individual who derails threads via dishonest debate tactics,

 

now you guys use it as an insult hurled at anyone who's opinion differs from GOP talking points.

 

Worse,

you guys are allowed to hurl all the insults and craps you want,

because anyone who POSTS a differing opinion allegedly does so because they seek negative attention.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

because the definition of troll has changed....

 

It used to be used to identify an individual who derails threads via dishonest debate tactics,

 

now you guys use it as an insult hurled at anyone who's opinion differs from GOP talking points.

 

Worse,

you guys are allowed to hurl all the insults and craps you want,

because anyone who POSTS a differing opinion allegedly does so because they seek negative attention.

 

 

I was being funny.  Remember you said I wasnt funny and I told you that your just the punchline. 

 

See above ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.