THE NEW YORK TIMES’ COVERAGE OF LOUIS FARRAKHAN AND DEMOCRAT HOUSE MEMBERS

louis farrakhan is a career racist, Black supremacist and anti-Semite.  And he has had personal meetings with 8 members of the United States House of Representatives – six of whom are refusing to condemn him.

Is this news?  That’s like asking if the Pacific Ocean is wet.

So how is the New York Times, that self-professed presenter of “All the news that’s fit to print”, handling this story?

From Tom Blumer’s article at newsbusters.org:

Until Friday, the New York Times had not mentioned Louis Farrakhan in a serious story since October. The Old Gray Lady tried mightily to avoid covering Democrats’ and leftist leaders’ past and recent embraces of the controversial Nation of Islam leader before finally — but very incompletely — giving in.

Jonah Engel Bromwich’s story failed to mention Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, and ignored a days-earlier call by a Republican Jewish group for the resignations of seven “Farrakhan-connected” congresspersons.

The paper’s related tweet betrayed a “Why are we even doing this?” sentiment (h/t Twitchy):

 

NYTtweetOnFarrakhan030918

Translation: “There’s not much to see here, but click through if you want to be bored.”

In other words, in the rarefied world of New York Timesville, this is nothing with nothing.

But, just the day before, The Times ran a front page story about how serious the “Stormy Daniels scandal” was.

And what is the “Stormy Daniels scandal”?  It is an allegation by a 38 year old faded porn actress who is now reduced to stripping in Florida men’s clubs, that she had sex with Donald Trump 12 years ago.

Yep, that’s far more significant than 8 House members meeting with a racist anti-Semite and six of them acknowledging they met with him but refusing to condemn him.  Just ask those nice folks at the New York Times.

And then ask them how much coverage they gave Donald Trump’s supposed relationship with White supremacist/anti-Semite david duke, no matter how many times Trump specifically disavowed and condemned him.

Anyone still remember when The Times was still a relatively decent source of serious news reportage?

Boy do you have a great memory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *