The New York Times reminds us that its highest purpose is as birdcage liner

New York Times reporter Israel objectivity Diaa Hadid

The New York Times, despite its Jewish progenitors, was always too Progressive to be pro-Jewish or pro-Israel. The New York Times was written by and for Jews who like to throw around a few Yiddish words (“nosh,” “meshugganah,” etc.), and who may even go to synagogue once a year, but who think religion is a primitive, backwards approach to the world. They are clean and bright and shiny, and Jews — real Jews — are dirty, backwards and, in Israel, imperialist occupying forces. That’s why you should never believe a word that the New York Times says about Israel, unless it’s a surprisingly positive word, in which case you’ll know that an enterprising philosemite snuck into the newsroom at night and messed with the computers.

I mention the above as a preclude to this story, which the inestimable CAMERA first caught:

[Read more…]

BBC goes the extra mile to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with yesterday’s murder spree in Kenya

We know the facts:  Gunmen invaded a mall in Nairobi, Kenya, that is primarily frequented by Westerners.  By the end of the attack, at least 39 people had been murdered and 150 injured.  There may still be hostages.  An African Muslim group called Al-Shabaab announced soon after the attack that this was intended to be a targeted attack against non-Muslims.  Lest anyone be unclear about this concept, it spelled it out:  “Only Kuffar were singled out for this attack. All Muslims inside #Westgate were escorted out by the Mujahideen before beginning the attack.”

Funnily enough, the BBC, which still clings to its reputation as a news service, failed to get Al-Shabaab’s memorandum.  When the inimitable Zombie went to check out the BBC’s coverage, the BBC turned out to have tuned out Islam from its reporting:

The BBC’s lead story this afternoon was almost a study in journalistic malfeasance: an archetypal example of how left-leaning Western journalists will violate their own consciences — and the basic principles of reporting — in their relentless quest to hide the truth.

 Such bias happens every day, and complaints about it happen just as often, but the sheer volume and speed of partisan reporting makes it difficult to highlight a single example. Even so, let’s pause for just a moment and dissect this typical specimen of ideological media spin.

The article under discussion can be found here — at least for now. Since media outlets often delete articles which they later find embarrassing, I can’t guarantee it will be online forever, so to preserve the evidence I took a screenshot, which you can see here.


Right off the bat, even in the headline itself, the BBC commits a litany of egregious and inexcusable journalistic errors.

The first and most obvious blunder is the missing subject. Who did what? Well, according the the BBC, an entity called a “shoot-out” committed mass murder in Nairobi. Note how there are no human actors in the headline. It wasn’t people who killed 11, it was an inanimate and leaderless “shoot-out” that killed 11.

This is a basic grammatical snafu which even freshmen journalism students quickly learn to avoid. But not the BBC, apparently.

On a second, more subtle, level, use of the word “shoot-out” implies that there were two equal combatants involved, and that therefore blame can be spread around to everyone. But as we know, it wasn’t at first a “shoot-out” — it was a group of terrorists massacring unarmed non-Muslims. (Only much later, after police arrived, did it devolve into a shoot-out.)

Since the BBC has been one of the world’s leading media outlets for nearly a century, and in previous generations set the global standard for news-writing guidelines, they have absolutely no excuse for writing a headline like that — they can’t claim “We’re new at this kind of thing” or “We’re just bloggers — cut us some slack.” No. The BBC literally wrote the book on how to write proper headlines. And if they write a poor headline like this, it must be on purpose.

I urge you to read Zombie’s entire post, just so you know how the Left lies to people.

To appreciate the scope of its egregiously misleading excuse for journalism, imagine if, when Hitler’s troops invaded Poland, jump-starting WWII, the BBC headline had been “Scattered German Troops Engage Some Polish Citizens In Battle.”

Stuff, all of which is depressing, about Democrat government and Democrat party-line media

In no particular order:

Listen to Richard Epstein and John Yoo explain why ObamaCare is a more heinous government policy than any ever before imposed on the American people.  Pay special attention to Richard Epstein’s point about the dangers lurking in rule by waiver, which is antithetical to rule by law.  (This is in the last video.)  (Hat tip:  JKB)

Don’t let the cheerful numbers about GDP, etc., mislead you.  Everything that’s improving in the economy (and things are improving) is being sucked up by government spending and debt.  Oh, joy!

Tom Elia caught the PBS Newshour in something that can politely be called deceit by omission.

I think I need to have some quiet time with my dog.  This all depresses me.

Ayers’ life was a just a joyous, misunderstood frolic

I have to admit to screaming with laughter when I finally got around to Bill Ayers’ short-form autobiography for the New York Times, one that sees him classifying himself as just a joyous idealist, frolicking through the 1960s and 1970s — a Dennis the Menace for his times, all good intentions and humorously bad outcomes.  The best take-down of this inane little op-ed piece is, of course, Patterico’s satirical discovery of a similar piece from Charles Manson.  I opted here for a fisking, one that shows, I hope, that the New York Times has sunk so low that even Polly no longer wants it to line her bird cage:

I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role [Perhaps he was cast in that role because he himself wrote the line.  Let me remind you of Ayers own boastful words in 2001:  ”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”  To most sentient beings, setting bombs to kill fellow citizens + no regrets = “unrepentant terrorist”]; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing. [Poor baby.  Tough enough to build the bombs to kill the people, but just can’t take the criticism that comes with it.]


I never killed or injured anyone. [If we’re talking about personally pulling the trigger, neither did Hitler, dude.  Both in law and popular culture, though, we tend to hold the instigator responsible for the direction in which he led his troops.  Indeed, I’m willing to bet the a very little bit of digging will find Ayers calling for Nixon or Bush or Cheney to be convicted for war crimes, notwithstanding that none of them ever put a finger on the trigger.] I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. [Well, I’m sure it’s true that he was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations.  What Ayers forgets to tell credulous readers is that he was also an active participant in some of the most violent anti-War protests the 1960s had to offer:

Ayers was an active participant in Weatherman’s 1969 “Days of Rage” riots in Chicago, where nearly 300 members of the organization employed guerrilla-style tactics to viciously attack police officers and civilians alike, and to destroy massive amounts of property via vandalism and arson; their objective was to further spread their anti-war, anti-American message. Reminiscing on those riots, Ayers says pridefully: “We’d … proven that it was possible — we didn’t all die, we were still there.”]

I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. [I love how he glosses over this “accidental explosion” (there’s that Dennis the Menace innocence again) as if it was just a gas main that blew, as tragically happened in my community the other day.  This particular explosion happened because Ayers and his buddies were building bombs that they intended to use to kill hundreds of people.  Here’s a bit more info:

In 1970, Ayers’ then-girlfriend Diana Oughton, along with Weatherman members Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, were killed when a bomb they were constructing exploded unexpectedly. That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.”

In other words, when Ayers, in the very next sentence, speaks about the WU placing “small bombs in empty” offices, that’s simply because these WU clowns were, thank God, too inept to carry out their intended level of murderous mayhem.]

The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.

The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.  [“Extreme vandalism”: More than thirty actual, not merely attempted bombings, aimed at the federal infrastructure, not to mention the intent to kill hundreds of military men and civilians.  I think even Bill Clinton would be impressed by this misuse of language.  As for the “attacks on property, never on people, [that] were meant to respect human life,” we know this for the outright lie it is.]

Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.  [Let me repeat:

In 1970, Ayers’ then-girlfriend Diana Oughton, along with Weatherman members Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, were killed when a bomb they were constructing exploded unexpectedly. That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.”]

I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. [Another lie. Again, let me repeat:  ”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” ]


The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. [And the man lies again.  For those who would like to take the time to research it, there’s ample evidence that these two were not just nodding acquaintances at coffee parties, but had a tightly interwoven friendship that spanned many, many years.  And yes, on that record, I will assume that Obama was comfortable with Ayers’ attitudes towards America and revolution, given Ayers’ self-professed role as a “teacher,” that Ayers did what he could to indoctrinate Obama.] There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.  [Always the McCarthy trope.  It’s truly become the last refuge of a Communist.]

You’ll notice that I repeatedly used the word “lie” or some variation thereof in the above fisking.  That is actually a loaded word to use when discussing verbal emanations from a true narcissist, whether he’s comes that way by process of upbringing or political ideological, never lies in his own mind.

To the Leftist ideologue, there is no such thing as absolute truth.  Instead, there are only ideologically pure results, and the truth is whatever is necessary to achieve those results.  That’s why Leftists are such cool liars.

Contrast Nixon’s sweaty-faced lies with Obama’s cool-as-a-cucumber refutation of statements made practically minutes before.  Nixon, an old-fashioned Quaker, knew he was lying and, despite the compulsion to do so, suffered for it.  Obama and Ayers, and their buddies, never suffer pangs of conscience because truth is infinitely malleable, and “factual” statements exist only to further their goals.

In this regard, it’s worthwhile remember that sociopaths almost always pass lie detector tests.  They are functioning in their own immediate reality, and are very comfortable with the rightness of any statement that passes their lips.

Contact information for companies that advertise in the LA Times *CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED*

Ymarsakar is right — contacting the editors at the LA Times to get them to release the video showing Obama cheerfully consorting with radical Islamists is pointless.  They don’t care what you and I think.  However, as he said, the advertisers and owners do (or, at least, should) care.

With that in mind, here is a list of contact information for some of the advertisers in the LA Times.*  Please be civil.  We don’t want to look bad.  Our goal is to make the LA Times look like a failed journalistic institution that will inevitably be abandoned by thoughtful, informed (and polite) readers.

City National Banka commenter says that City National states that it has no ads running in the LA Times, although I found this contact page by clicking through their ad in the Times. To keep civility alive, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt., and here is some executive contact info

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (sadly, I could only find multiple phone numbers, not an email form)

Estrella (again, only a phone number — 1.877.386.6100)

ING Direct or, better yet:

CapitalOne (pick a department, any department, because it’s impossible to find a contact for corporate headquarters — although I’m still looking)

Windemere (again, another phone number site: 925.556.6000).

CIT (lots of phone numbers).  This is the corporate fact sheet for CIT Group, which may be the umbrella organization, but I don’t guarantee that.

Air France. Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses, so I hope your French is up to snuff.

Kaiser Permanente (good luck figuring this one out and, since it’s a medical care provider as well as a business, you may want to approach this with caution, so that you don’t tie up resources dedicated to patient care).  Here’s the umbrella Kaiser organization corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.

Verizon. This is probably the umbrella corporation, and there are executive contact emails here.

British Petroleum (which had a very nice website when it came to figuring out how to contact the company).  Here are some executive emails too. (not a great contact form, since it’s geared to purchasers, not members of the public).  Got it!  Here’s the corporate headquarters fact sheet, with executive email addresses.

Weight Watchers (no email, but telephone contact info).  Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.

Netflix (again, phone numbers, since the website is geared towards advertisers, customers and the media).  Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.

GMC. Here’s general GM contact information (including executive emails)

Lexus (a nice contact page)

The Venetian Hotel in Vegas

Bank of America. Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.

Treasure Island Hotel in Vegas

Go Hawaii (the State’s official tourism site)

Citibank (a miserable website for finding useful contact information for our purposes, but they promise at this link that “No matter what you need help with, no matter where you are, you can always reach us.” I took them at their word when I provided this link.)  This is probably the correct corporate fact sheet, but there are so many “Citi” entities, I really don’t guarantee it.

Loma Linda University Medical Center

UC Berkeley Haas Business School/Columbia Business School — although I suspect that, given their known campus politics, both schools may be on board with the Times’ approach to “reporting”.

American Express customer service (and corporate info)

Southern California Chevy Dealers — who don’t have a direct contact, so here’s general GM contact information (including executive emails)

Cabo San Lucas Luxury Real Estate (snail mail and phone contact only)

Time Warner Cable — corporate fact sheet with executive email addresses

Virgin Mobile USA — corporate fact sheet with executive email addresses

Solar City


La Quinta Inns and Suites

Also, you may want to contact the LA Times’ parent organization:

Tribune Company and some executive contact info too.

The principle involved here is an important one. Americans, who have the great blessing to live in a free state with free speech, are entitled to support radical Palestinians and fellow-travelers, so long as they’re not active terrorists. However, it would seem to me, naïve though I am, that Americans also have a right to know that their Presidential candidate is consorting with radical Palestinians and fellow-travelers. Despite (or, one could say, because of) the fact that it might not reflect well on Obama in the minds of many Americans, it is news.

Here’s the letter I’m currently sending out.  Any suggestions for or improvements to this letter are welcome:

I noticed that your company advertises in the LA Times.  The LA Times has admitted that it is withholding from the public a newsworthy video of Barack Obama consorting with known terrorists as well as representatives of the American Muslim community who have expressed violent hostility to Jews and to Israel.  This is media malfeasance of the highest order.

Until the LA Times begins to practice journalism and not partisan politics, I will refrain from reading it, and I will refrain from doing business with companies that advertise in it.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

By the way, for those who may fear that the tape’s existence is a myth, it’s not. In April 2008, the LA Times was already writing glowing words about the get-together, and boasting about the tape’s existence: “The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”

UPDATE:  Welcome, Little Green Football readers.

*You’ll notice a certain haphazard quality in the contact info: some links are for generic contact forms, some are for the corporation’s fact sheet, and some are for both. The problem is that it’s not always easy to figure out by following an advertising link which umbrella corporation actually matches up with the website I’m viewing (as, for example, with Capitol One or ING Direct).  In those cases, it’s easier and safer to use the linked website’s own contact form. My goal has been to give you as much information as possible, without inadvertently deluging with email an entity that has a name similar to that of an LA Times advertiser.

LA Times hides damaging video of Obama

The LA Times has admitted that it possesses a video of Barack Obama cheerfully attending a radical Muslim meeting at which the speakers hurled the usual violent and threatening invective at Jews and at Israel.  Also attending were Ayers and Dohrn.

One might think that, given next week’s election, the LA Times, which is another failing old media outlet, would have a scoop here and publish it, both to increase its circulation and so that people could make up their own minds about Obama’s beliefs and affiliations.  The Times, however, has refused to do so, apparently for fear that it could harm Obama’s chances in the upcoming election.

As Charles Johnson says, if this is true, “this is media malfeasance of an almost astounding degree. They have a video that could change the stakes in this election and they’re hiding it. And they’ve been hiding it since last April.”  The fact that the Times is standing there doing nothing even as it holds actual news (not just the usual puff pieces) is shocking and should change immediately.

Since we know, though, that the LA Times will do nothing, rather than see the Obamessiah go down in well-deserved, it’s up to us to do something:  If you’re a blogger, blog.  If you’re an emailer, email.  And whatever else you do, let the Times know what you think.