Ron Paul Supporters Teach New York Times A Valuable Lesson
by LibertyVini?
(PHOTO: The New York Times Has A Long History Of Principled Journalistic Integrity, as exemplified by?reporters like Stalin-Boy Walter Duranty).
Pity the poor New York Times. Buffeted by scandals of plagiarism, made-up stories, outright government war-propaganda-mongering, and collapsing readership /?stock price, the sometime crypto-apologist for Stalinism, and august house organ of the Eastern Establishment now has to contend with the rising presidential candidacy of a real Jeffersonian republican, Ron Paul.
When the editorial gods of the paper first became aware of Congressman Paul's candidacy (about four months after everybody else did), they tried to paint the good doctor as a hopeless idealist, hoping,?we suppose that a fluff piece would help seal his fate as a "second-tier candidate". Inadvertently, they headed the story with the by-now iconic shot of Ron flashing the peace sign (taken by photographer Richard DeYoung) against a red backdrop - whoops! And Ron's popularity marched on...
Next, they tried to go back to ignoring Ron. Then the first 'money bomb' on November 5th happened, and they went like "whoah, dude, how'd he do THAT?", yet failed to detect that anything was amiss. And Ron's popularity marched on...
With the advent of the second, $6.2M Tea Party money bomb, the old media went into full panic mode. Continuing to follow the pattern of opposition to popular peaceful uprising elucidated by Gandhi,?the New York Times?produced, on Christmas Eve, the most uncharitable smear-job I have ever witnessed, against this sincere, gentle patriot, alleging that he regularly cavorts with neo-Nazis and is a closet racist,?on the say-so?of racist, hate-laden nutjobs, quoted through a website?whose blogposts are often populated by a bunch of fanatical, Arab-genocide-promoting war freaks.
I read the smear on Christmas Day, and I couldn't believe what the once-great "Newspaper of Record" was trying to pull. First, the vile blob of journalistic dung was published, not as a news item or editorial in the old dead-tree version of the paper, but in a "blogpost" (Note to self - ponder the question 'can a newspaper REALLY, LEGITIMATELY?be considered to have a "blog"?') in a "blog" called the "Medium", featuring news about, well, "blogs" (Note to self - when referring to such astroturfing dreck, use quotes around the word "blog").
Second, from the get-go, comments were disabled. I know, because I sent them?a comment, see if you think it should have been "moderated";
?"Is this what the great New York Times has come down to - using gossip and innuendo to imply that Ron Paul is a Nazi? Did you forget to mention his German ancestry? Or that he's a white male? This is a
prime example of why the the Times is in such dire straits, and, additionally, why watching its final death throes will generate so very few tears."
Third, they tried to hide what they did by removing links to the article. Then they decided to allow comments (although they still didn't publish mine, boo-frickin' hoo). Then the received over 250 reasoned, well-written, devastating critiques whose quality TOWERED over that of the Times' literary turd that occasioned them. Then they prefaced the entire mess with a smugly-worded retraction, instead of simply, shamefully removing the steaming pile of journalistic failure outright.
As Ron Paul supporters, we must gird our loins for one hell of a fight.
And someone, really should create and fund, as a idealogical counterpoint to the Pulitzer Prize, a "Duranty Prize", for debasement of journalism in service of fascist dictatorship.
?