Showing posts with label Press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Press. Show all posts

Saturday, November 25, 2023

The Gen Z Rising Star in Conservative Reporting

To understand the motivation of Aaron Sibarium, Yalie, Gen Z reporter and conservative media darling, it’s instructive to travel back in time to last December, and do a little eavesdropping.

Right outside D.C., in a small studio apartment tucked inside an urban-suburban complex in Arlington, Virginia, Sibarium chats it up with libertarian writer Richard Hanania in a video call for a podcast exploring “the right-wing echo chamber.” In other contexts, on other podcasts (like his own), you can find Sibarium leaning into his more conservative opinions, but this is not one of these moments. He’s here to punch right. 

“Everyone on the right wants to write essays and have their grand theories about political economy and the American Right taken very seriously from the time they’re young,” he says, “and the problem is that A) when you’re 22, you don’t really know anything and B) there’s a surplus of that writing already.” 

What he values, he says, is something different from the conservative hot take-machine: real investigations, seeking out scoops, digging for data. As he sees it, he’s providing a rare service, occupying a narrow journalistic niche: old-school, shoe-leather reporting from a conservative point of view. 

“It’s rare to see someone who will cover something like, say, race-based treatment of Covid drugs … who also is like not a crank and has an IQ above 120,” Sibarium says, cracking half a smile. 

This quip is effectively Sibarium’s Statement of Purpose. In the 2½ years since he became a reporter, he’s snared some major scoops: There was his piece exploring how states, advised by the FDA to do so, used racial preferences in rationing scarce Covid-19 drugs, giving preference to young people of color over older white people. (Some of the states stopped the practice soon after he reported on them.) He broke a story that exposed the Columbia Law School’s plans to require video statements from applicants, presumably to evade the Supreme Court decision banning the consideration of race in admissions. (Columbia abandoned that plan, insisting it was a mistake, when Sibarium asked them about it.) And he uncovered Yale administrators’ bullying of a non-Black student who called his apartment a “trap house” in a party invitation, a scandal that brought personnel changes to the school. 

Sibarium, a staff writer at the Washington Free Beacon, is 27, diminutive, nasally and “formerly autistic.” (More on that later.) He’s become a force on the right who’s drawn praise from conservatives as far apart as Tucker Carlson and David French, who called Sibarium “a rising star reporter.” Sibarium doesn’t see his project as wholly new, as there has been conservative reporting for decades, but he’s trying to do something a little different.

“What maybe is new-ish about my personal project,” Sibarium says, is that he is trying “to report on the culture war in a way that is fairly aggressive and combative.”

As Americans’ trust in media has cratered, driven almost entirely by independents and Republicans, Sibarium has hunkered down, abstained from flirtations with fascism and racism (in imagery, group chats or pseudonymous op-eds) and done what some people have long been begging conservatives to do more of: pure reporting, digging up and revealing new information. Sibarium has done that, quietly, without sting operations — and without the millions of eyeballs turned on pundits like Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino and Carlson.  

Read the rest here.

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Bari Weiss Resigns from the New York Times

Dear A.G.,

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.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

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.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

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 on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other 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.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

Read the rest here.

This is well worth reading in its entirety.

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Sam Donaldson Endorses Bloomberg and (some) Journalists Throw a Fit

I am 53 and have to wonder how many people younger than me even know who he is. Of those who like me, remember him, after getting past that initial response of "I didn't know he was still alive," most off us are likely to respond with a giant "who cares?" But apparently some in his former profession (he has been retired for seven years) think that the journalistic code of ethics (try not to laugh) is a bit like the mob; once in never out. Which is to say they think he has forever forfeited his right to express political opinions because he used to be the White House correspondent for ABC News.

Rubbish.

Whatever one may think of his opinions, he is entitled to them and he has not forfeited his basic rights to freedom of expression. Donaldson is retired, and has been for quite a while. If he was still on the job, then yes, his endorsement would have been seriously unethical. But he isn't. These people need to get over their inflated view of themselves.

Details

Sunday, October 27, 2019

The Washington Post is getting torched on Twitter


  1. Genghis Khan, accomplished horseman and indefatigable traveler, breathes his last.
  2. Maximilien Robespierre, pamphleteer and cutlery connoisseur, dies at 36.
  3. Saddam Hussein, successful politician, oil baron and noted tough boss, dead at 69.
  4. Charles Manson, devout family man and Beach Boys super fan, passes away at 83.
  5. Obituary: Psychologist and Wine Connoisseur Hannibal Lecter Dies After Lengthy Battle With Flesh Eating Disorder
  6. Robert Mugabe, founder of Modern Monetary Theory, dies at 95.

Read the rest here.

Monday, May 01, 2017

Timothy Stanley: Trump is right about media bias

Two parties, two different Americas. On Saturday night, the press gathered for the annual White House correspondents' dinner in Washington where, traditionally, they would roast the president. But this year the punchline was in Pennsylvania, at a rally President Trump held to celebrate his first 100 days in office.

"I could not possibly be more thrilled," said Trump, "than to be more than 100 miles away from Washington's swamp, spending my evening with ... much better people."

Thus are the battle lines drawn: the press vs. the president, liberal vs. conservative, Washington vs. the rest of the country.
It sounds compelling, but it's actually absurd. The press is not the white knight of democracy. The president is not the people's champion.

Let's start with the press. Trump is right: The correspondents' dinner is awful. It's an evening of self-congratulation, bad jokes and political bias, where Democrats go to get praised and Republicans to be lampooned. It was at this dinner where President Obama and "SNL's" Seth Myers famously roasted Trump in 2011. A few years later, the joke turned out to be on them.
What is the press? It's conservative, moderate, liberal; as objective as possible but sometimes not; struggling to survive in the age of the Internet.

Hard to define, in other words -- and yet in recent years it has developed a sense of itself, as if it had some unifying political purpose. Choosing Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the men who exposed the Watergate scandal that toppled Richard Nixon, to address the correspondents' dinner sent a clear message: the press is not only here to hold presidents to account but to bring them down.

Read the rest here.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

NY Times Posts anti-Russian Orthodox Hit Piece

There really is no other way to describe it. The lack of balance and naked journalistic bias is breathtaking, even for the Times. How dare a church that doesn't support the pan-sexual dogma of the enlightened West build churches and preach conservative values in... FRANCE! Reading the article one can almost feel the editorial board on the verge of a collective stroke.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

A Volley of Criticism for the New York Times

Via T-19 ...
The Times is taking an online shellacking for its grossly biased coverage of a number of social and religious issues, especially relating to gay rights. See...

Here - Terry Mattingly

Here - Andrew Walker & Owen Strachan

Here - Alan Jacobs.

Here - Rod Dreher

and here - T:19

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Excuse me... what year is this?

I ask because I just read an op-ed piece that is so breathtaking in its anti-Catholic bigotry that I am wondering if I might not have been caught in some sort of time warp. The article in question would have been par for the course, in say 1928 when Al Smith was running for president and the Klan was sounding the alarm about the dual allegiance of those liquor loving papists. But that something like this could be written in our day and age, by a journalist for a respected weekly news magazine, AND get by the editor is shocking.

Honestly, some heads (plural) need to roll over this.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

New York Times Website Hacked

The website of the New York Times is still down almost 24 hrs after a foreign based cyber attack carried out by self proclaimed allies of Syrian dictator Bashir Al-Assad.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

The End of the Perpetual War

Every few years the NY Times screws up and they publish an editorial that I actually agree with, at least in part. To whit...
President Obama’s speech on Thursday was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America. For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.

“Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” Mr. Obama said in the speech at the National Defense University. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. It’s what our democracy demands.”

As frustratingly late as it was — much of what Mr. Obama said should have been said years ago — there is no underestimating the importance of that statement. Mr. Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, used the state of war that began with the authorization to invade Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda and others who planned the Sept. 11 attacks to justify extraordinary acts like indefinite detention without charges and the targeted killing of terrorist suspects.

While there are some, particularly the more hawkish Congressional Republicans, who say this war should essentially last forever, Mr. Obama told the world that the United States must return to a state in which counterterrorism is handled, as it always was before 2001, primarily by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. That shift is essential to preserving the democratic system and rule of law for which the United States is fighting, and for repairing its badly damaged global image.
Read the rest here.

Yeah, there are some points where I disagree. But broadly speaking they are, astonishingly, right.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Dana Milbank Slams Obama's Assault on the Press

There are various reasons you might not care about the Obama administration’s spying on journalist James Rosen and labeling him a “co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor” in an espionage case.

Liberals may not be particularly bothered because the targeted journalist works for Fox News. Conservatives may not be concerned because of their antipathy toward the news media generally. And the general public certainly doesn’t have much patience for journalists’ whining.

But here’s why you should care — and why this case, along with the administration’s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed Obama administration scandals regarding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service. The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.
Read the rest here.

Aside from being a generally good article, the source is important. Milbank is a  dyed in the wool lefty Obama drone. This is just the latest sign that the MSM is having a sudden recollection that they are supposed to be journalists, and not members of the White House cheer-leading squad. This could be very bad news for Zero.

Monday, April 15, 2013

The Media and the Gosnell Trial

Across the mainstream media and press over the last few days there has been something of an admission that they dropped the ball on what is one of the most important criminal trials in years. The explanations have been varied. The NY Times today basically admitted that the story warranted more coverage but denied liberal bias as the reason for their failure. The Washington Post did not address motives but in a short statement their editor acknowledged they had blown it and announced they would have a reporter assigned to the story starting today. Other columnists on the left have openly conceded, with some embarrassment, that the story's implications for the abortion debate had made them uncomfortable. And in fairness it must be noted that even among news sources with a more conservative editorial position coverage has been spotty. Some have been on top of it consistently. Others however have given it only marginally better coverage than the left leaning press.

But the bottom line is that it looks like the trial of a man who may be one of the greatest mass murderers in American History is finally going to be getting some real attention in the press and media.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Why the Gosnell trial is important

Caution: These stories deal with allegations and sometimes graphic descriptions of exceptionally horrific crimes.
In what can only be described as a “house of horrors,” abortion provider Kermit Gosnell stands trial in Philadelphia, charged with the grotesque murder of at least seven infants, allegedly born alive after botched abortions only to be brutally killed moments later.

As this nearly month-long trial continues, it paints the stark and unmistakably abhorrent reality of abortion. While the national mainstream media has been all but silent about this trial, the headlines coming from local media coverage have been morbidly graphic. Babies born alive and then allegedly killed in truly barbaric ways.
Read the rest here.

See also this related story about the media's deafening silence.
P.S.: See also this excellent story from The Atlantic.
HT: T-19

Saturday, April 06, 2013

Germans are shocked by a private glimpse of their leader

BERLIN — The photos were splashed across the top-circulating tabloid in Germany this week — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “secret family life” uncovered for all to see.

The secret? That she has a private life.

Unlike their counterparts in the United States, many European leaders keep their personal lives out of sight, and Merkel may be the most intensely private of them all. Her husband, a chemist, skipped her first inauguration in 2005 and rarely appears with her in public. Her political friends have never visited her at home. And she is rarely photographed wearing anything other than a suit.

Merkel’s deep-cover privacy is aided and abetted by a high-minded German mainstream media that rarely deign to report on anything they deems outside the realm of her political decision-making. But with Germany increasingly calling the shots in Europe because of the economic crisis in the 17-nation euro zone, more people are hungry for a glimpse of what makes Merkel tick.
Read the rest here.

I have long thought that our presidents have ceded a bit too much ground to the press in terms of the often intrusive coverage.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Britain: Judge issues damning report on the press

LONDON — The leader of a major inquiry into the standards of British newspapers triggered by the phone hacking scandal offered an excoriating critique of the press as a whole on Thursday, saying it displayed “significant and reckless disregard for accuracy,” and urged the press to form an independent regulator to be underpinned by law.

The report singled out Rupert Murdoch’s defunct tabloid The News of the World for sharp criticism.

“Too many stories in too many newspapers were the subject of complaints from too many people with too little in the way of titles taking responsibility, or considering the consequences for the individuals involved,” the head of the inquiry, Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, said in a 46-page summary of the findings in his long-awaited, 1,987-page report published in four volumes.

“The ball moves back into the politicians’ court,” Sir Brian said, referring to what form new and tighter regulations should take. “They must now decide who guards the guardians.”
Read the rest here

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Obama's off the record, now on the record interview

President Barack Obama suggested he'll be able to achieve a major fiscal reform deal as well as comprehensive immigration reform in his second term, according to his off-the-record conversation with the Des Moines Register.

The White House reversed course on insisting that the president's conversation on Tuesday with the editor and the publisher of the Iowa paper remain off-the-record and allowed the paper to publish a transcript of the conversation.
Read the rest here.

Friday, May 04, 2012

AP apologizes to fired World War II reporter

NEW YORK -- In World War II's final moments in Europe, Associated Press correspondent Edward Kennedy gave his news agency perhaps the biggest scoop in its history. He reported -- a full day ahead of the competition -- that the Germans had surrendered unconditionally at a former schoolhouse in Reims, France.

For this, he was publicly rebuked by the AP, and then quietly fired.

The problem: Kennedy had defied military censors to get the story out. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Harry Truman had agreed to suppress news of the capitulation for a day, in order to allow Stalin to stage a second surrender ceremony in Berlin. Kennedy was also accused of breaking a pledge that he and 16 other journalists had made to keep the surrender a secret for a time, as a condition of being allowed to witness it firsthand.

Sixty-seven years later, the AP's top executive is apologizing for the way the company treated Kennedy.

"It was a terrible day for the AP. It was handled in the worst possible way," said president and CEO Tom Curley.

Kennedy, he said, "did everything just right."
Read the rest here.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Scary news from Down Under

Australia is a nation where freedom of speech has appeared as solidly established as anywhere in the world.

Today, however, it is under a massive threat. This is all the more shocking because it is as head-on assault on Australia's entire political culture of liberty and democracy.

In the latest development, the governing alliance of the leftist Australian Labor Party and the extreme leftist Greens have received an official report into media regulation recommending draconian controls.

The 470-page report, commissioned as part of the government's vendetta against the Murdoch press, demands that the media be made more "accountable," and that the government have the power to impose "professional standards." The chairman of the inquiry that made the report, retired Federal Court Judge Roy Finkelstein, recommends a News Media Council be set up to license the press and to censor news reporting and political commentary.

Licensing the media has always been abhorrent in the English-speaking world. It was not contemplated even in Australia's first days as a penal colony.

It is recommended that the council -- presumably to be called the Ministry of Truth -- should have a judge or lawyer as its chairman, appointed by the government, and 20 members, a large portion of whom would be nominated by the Labor-affiliated journalists' union.

The council would have power to alter or permanently ban articles. Disobedience would result in a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court, and there would be no appeal. As well as having the power to ban articles, the council would have the power to compel media to publish responses to stories.

Now get this: its jurisdiction would extend not merely to newspapers -- which would be outrageous enough -- but also to any website. Perhaps even if it was visited by only one or two people a day. Finkelstein says its jurisdiction should cover websites which get more than 15,000 hits a year, or an average of 41 a day, that is, practically every website that could be described as publishing "news, information and opinion of current value."
Read the rest here.
HT: Bill (aka The Godfather).

Friday, January 27, 2012

A Newspaper With a Pitchfork

A  New York Times story on Friday that essentially indicted and convicted a 22-year-old star football player on an alleged sexual assault charge by an anonymous accuser should have begun as follows:

“We know absolutely nothing about this rumor except what six people told us anonymously about this guy who they say sexually assaulted this girl. We don’t know who she is or what she said, or really anything, but here’s HIS name and what ‘they’ say about him.”

Instead, with throat-clearing authority, the story begins with the young man’s name — Patrick J. Witt, Yale University’s former quarterback — and his announcement last fall that he was withdrawing his Rhodes scholarship application so that he could play against Harvard. The game was scheduled the same day as the scholarship interview.

Next we are told that he actually had withdrawn his application for the scholarship after the Rhodes Trust had learned “through unofficial channels that a fellow student had accused Witt of sexual assault.” And there goes the gavel. Case closed.

But in fact, no one seems to know much of anything, and no one in an official capacity is talking. The only people advancing this devastating and sordid tale are “a half-dozen [anonymous] people with knowledge of all or part of the story.” All or part? Which part? As in, “Heard any good gossip lately?”
Read the rest here.

I read the original story from the Times when it was posted and was sufficiently appalled to email a nasty letter to the editor which said in part... "A story based entirely on anonymous sources about an unnamed woman who filed a non specific and informal complaint with no police involvement and no formal action from the university alleging sexual misconduct by a nationally known athlete is not what most people would describe as news. Rather the word "gossip" seems more appropriate. Which is why I was sorry to see the "newspaper of record" publishing a story I would expect to find on page six of the Post."

For those not from the big city, the NY Post runs a notorious gossip column on page six.