Displaying posts published in

October 2017

Hey, Lefties: Where Are Your Pussyhats Now? By Julie Kelly

Today is the one-year anniversary of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape. (I know. It feels more like 10 years ago.)https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/07/hey-lefties-where-are-your-pssyhats-now/

For days, Americans were subjected to an ongoing audio loop of a private conversation in 2005 between Donald Trump and the show’s co-host, Billy Bush. I don’t need to remind you what Trump said because anyone with a pulse can probably recite it verbatim. Some gals even have hats to commemorate Trump’s secretly recorded, indecent remarks.

The ensuing outrage should have been a clue of how intense, consuming, and exhausting the daily political climate would be under a Trump presidency. When the story broke in the Washington Post that Friday afternoon, the paper’s servers crashed due to the massive traffic to the site. The reaction from Democrats, women’s groups, celebrities and many Republicans was harsh, swift, and in some cases, way over the top. The man who was running for president against a woman married to a man who was a serial sexual harasser and assaulter, who seduced a young intern in the Oval Office when he was president and left a little reminder of one tryst on her blue dress, who was impeached for lying about his predatory behavior under oath, was compelled to publicly address his comments and apologize for the vulgar remarks. Melania Trump spoke about it. Some demanded that Trump withdraw from the campaign and several Republican rescinded their endorsements.

No group was more offended by Trump’s remarks, or so it seemed, than the newly minted Puritans of Hollywood. Celebrities went ballistic, firing off furious and anguished tweets about the Republican presidential candidate. Film producers, television actors, movie stars: everyone had something to say about Trump and many equated his remarks to sexual assault. (There is a good round-up of celeb tweets here.) And it wasn’t just about his fitness for office. Trump was the poster boy of powerful, rich men using their position to exploit and abuse women. He symbolized everything that is wrong with our white, patriarchal society.

Now, here we are, one year later, and the New York Times just published a bombshell expose about one of Hollywood’s most powerful men, Harvey Weinstein. The lecherous behavior of this disgusting man is one of Hollywood’s worst-kept secrets; no doubt the Times could have an ongoing series of articles about this movie-making, sexual predator. Like many Hollywood moguls, Weinstein parlayed his fortune and influence into political power, becoming a major Democratic party donor and fundraiser. Since 1990, he has contributed more than $1 million to Democratic PACs, officeholders, and candidates, many of whom must have been aware of Weinstein’s reputation as a first-rate vulture.

So, let’s take a little trip down Social Media Lane and see how our virtuous, high-minded celebs who wanted Trump charged with rape a year ago have reacted to the Weinstein story.

Do you hear the crickets? I sure do.

Come along then, and let us look at the Twitter timelines of some of Trump’s most indignant celebrity agitators such as Debra Messing, Chelsea Handler, Bette Midler and Lena Dunham to see if any are despairing over Weinstein’s vile behavior and the victims left in his wake. Messing? No. Handler? No. Midler? No, but she did tweet about “the deceit!! The hypocrisy! The nerve!!” of Republican Congressman Tim Murphy for asking his girlfriend to have an abortion. Lena Dunham? Oh yes, here’s something! Dunham applauds the Times reporter for breaking the story then says this about Weinstein’s victims:

The Czech Donald Trump “I have stopped believing in multiculturalism.” by Soeren Kern

Andrej Babis, one of the Czech Republic’s wealthiest people, presents himself as a non-ideological results-oriented reformer. He has pledged to run the country like a business after years of what he calls corrupt and inept management. He is demanding a return of sovereignty from the European Union and rejects the euro.

Babis’s anti-establishment party ANO (which stands for “Action of Dissatisfied Citizens” and is also the Czech word for “yes”) is centrist, technocratic and pro-business. ANO, which rejects political labels, has attracted voters from both left and right, pulling support away from the established parties.

“The West European politicians keep repeating that it is our duty to comply with what the immigrants want because of their human rights. But what about the human rights of the Germans or the Hungarians? Why should the British accept that the wealth which has been created by many generations of their ancestors, should be consumed by people… who are a security risk and whose desire it is not to integrate but to destroy European culture?” — Andrej Babis, candidate for prime minister of the Czech Republic.

A “politically incorrect” billionaire businessman opposed to further EU integration is on track to become the next prime minister of the Czech Republic.

Andrej Babis, a Slovak-born former finance minister who has been sharply critical of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door migration policy, is leading the polls ahead of general elections, set for October 20.

Babis, one of the country’s wealthiest people, presents himself as a non-ideological results-oriented reformer. He has pledged to run the Czech Republic like a business after years of what he calls corrupt and inept management. He is demanding a return of sovereignty from the European Union and rejects the euro; he argues that it would “be another issue that Brussels would be meddling with.” He has also said he plans to cut government spending, stop people from “being parasites” in the social welfare system, and fight for Czech interests abroad. Babis is often referred to as “the Czech Donald Trump.”

Babis’s anti-establishment party ANO (which stands for “Action of Dissatisfied Citizens” and is also the Czech word for “yes”) is centrist, technocratic and pro-business. ANO, which rejects political labels, has attracted voters from both left and right, pulling support away from the established parties. Babis has said that ANO aims to replace left and right with “common sense.”

A recent poll shows that support for ANO has grown to 30.9%, while the support for the Czech Social Democrats has dropped to 13.1%. The pro-Russian Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia has 11.1%; the nationalist Civic Democratic Party 9.1%. TOP 09, the only openly pro-EU party, will not pass the 5% barrier of entry into Parliament; it is supported by only 4.4% of Czech voters.

Babis’s approach to the EU is pragmatic: “They give us money, so our membership is advantageous for us.” He does not want the Czech Republic to leave the EU, but he is opposed to the country joining the eurozone:

“No euro. I don’t want the euro. We don’t want the euro here. Everybody knows it’s bankrupt. It’s about our sovereignty. I want the Czech koruna, and an independent central bank. I don’t want another issue that Brussels would be meddling with.”

Canada ISIS-Inspired Attack Exposes Terror Suspects Illegally Crossing U.S. Border By Patrick Poole

According to the media, an alien illegally crossing the U.S. border and then committing a terror attack is supposed to be an urban myth.

But after an apparent ISIS-inspired terror attack in Edmonton, Canada, last week by a Somali asylee we now have a documented case of that exact scenario happening.

Abdullahi Hasan Sharif illegally crossed the U.S. southern border in July 2011. After he was released here he fled to Canada and claimed asylum.

As I reported here at PJ Media, last Saturday in two separate incidents he ran over and stabbed an Edmonton police officer, then later ran down pedestrians in downtown Edmonton in a U-Haul truck. An ISIS flag was found in one of the vehicles he used.

The police chief described the injuries to the pedestrians struck as ranging from “broken arms to brain bleeds.”

He’s now facing five counts of attempted murder.

Sharif had been reported to Canadian authorities for extremism in 2015 but had been deemed “not a threat,” making this yet another case of “Known Wolf” terrorism.

Macleans reports:

Two years ago, city police and RCMP had investigated Sharif after receiving a complaint about him espousing extremist ideological views— reportedly incoherent rants about genocide, and praise for Islamic State leaders. Police at least interviewed the complainant and the suspect, performing what they called this week an “exhaustive investigation” yet concluding the young resident didn’t pose a security threat and didn’t warrant charges or further investigation […]

A construction site co-worker had complained to police about Sharif, saying the suspect confided to him his hatred for Shia Muslims, and said that polytheists “needed to die,” CBC reported Monday. After he alerted city police, the co-worker was interviewed by RCMP, as part of the local branch of the Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams (INSET). That multi-agency force, formed after the 9/11 terror attacks, has had its share of successes, helping thwart the 2006 “Toronto 18” terror plot. In 2015, it arrested a group of young Montrealers hoping to fly abroad to join jihadist groups, and the same year arrested a man in Fort St. John, B.C., after he allegedly posted Islamic State propaganda advocating murder.

Speaking to reporters Monday, the head of Alberta’s INSET team would not say how many complaints it has received similar to the one that prompted its investigation of Sharif two years ago. Carvin says the number of national investigations likely numbers in the hundreds—far fewer than European countries are handling. The RCMP couldn’t legally or logistically monitor all such individuals all the time, so authorities must prioritize, she says.

Feds Unseal Indictments on ISIS Sympathizers Who Planned New York Attacks in 2016 By Rick Moran

An ISIS-inspired plot to attack the New York City subway, concerts, and other landmarks was foiled in 2016. Now the terrorists, who said they wanted to create the “next 9/11,” have been charged on multiple terrorism counts.

Charged in the case are Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy, 19, a Canadian citizen; Talha Haroon, 19, a US citizen living in Pakistan; and Russell Salic, 37, a Philippines citizen, the release said. According to prosecutors, all three have been arrested and El Bahnasawy has already pleaded guilty following his May 2016 arrest. Haroon and Salic have been arrested overseas, and the US is seeking to have them extradited to stand trial here.

El Bahnasawy allegedly traveled to New Jersey to carry out the attacks, purchased bomb-making materials and helped rent a cabin for building the devices, the news release said. Haroon is alleged to have planned to travel from Pakistan to New York to help and met with bomb experts in Pakistan. Salic is charged with wiring money from the Philippines to further the plot.

El Bahnasawy and Haroon allegedly communicated with an undercover officer posing as an ISIS supporter about their plot and declared their allegiance to ISIS in the communications, according to investigators.

Authorities tracked the international plot using an undercover officer.

According to the court documents, El Bahnasawy and Haroon claimed to the undercover agent to have contacts with an ISIS branch known as Khorasan Province, which is active in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

El Bahnasawy wrote of wanting to “create the next 9/11,” investigators said, and Haroon wanted to “cause great destruction to the filthy (disbelievers) by our hands.”

Targets included the subway, Times Square and concerts — inspired by the Paris attack. One message also mentioned targeting a Jewish neighborhood.

“(W)e seriously need a car bomb at Times Square. … Look at these crowds of people!” El Bahnasawy said in one message. He also talked of a desire to “shoot up concerts cuz they kill a lot of people. … (W)e just walk in with guns in our hands. … That’s how the Paris guys did it.”

Haroon called the subway a “perfect” target and spoke of killing as many people as possible on a “very busy day,” not stopping even if there were “women or kids.”

That would be followed up with explosions, Haroon said, adding, if they “get trapped” or “when we run out of bullets we let the vests go off.”

“No mercy is rule one,” Haroon said.

“I wanna kill . . . them in thousands,” he added later. “(W)e have to make a ocean out of their blood(.) Leave no one standing.”

El Bahnasawy bought bomb supplies including 40 pounds of hydrogen peroxide, a key ingredient in triacetone triperoxide (TATP), which is commonly used in improvised explosives, and he also bought batteries, Christmas lights, thermometers and aluminum foil, the court documents said. He then rented the cabin they would use to build the bombs.

Salic was introduced to the undercover agent by El Bahnasawy as a trusted supporter of ISIS who would help fund the operation. Using an alias, Salic then contacted the operative about transferring the money, and also said he was “desperate” to join ISIS in Syria. He wired just over $400 in mid-May to support the attacks.

I have no doubt the terrorists were dead serious and capable of carrying out the attacks. But talk of killing thousands with 40 pounds of TATP? Their plot is both chilling and pathetic — bragging to each other how many people they were going to kill, “no mercy,” “make an ocean of their blood” — they sounded more like terrorist wannabees than ISIS trained militants. CONTINUE AT SITE

Panic Ensues at Michigan State after Students Mistake Shoelace for Noose By Rick Moran

Today’s universities, with notable exceptions, are bastions of extreme political correctness. The problem is so bad, you wonder how anyone can learn anything useful.

In fact, they don’t. Students are so indoctrinated into an alternate reality of white supremacists hiding under the bed and fascists sitting next to them in class that fear becomes the norm. Anything and everything — even unrelated and unremarkable occurrences — can set off a wave of hysteria.

In the case of Michigan State University, the hysteria becomes a parody.

A student living in a dorm room reported a “noose” hung outside her door. The armies of righteous indignation were activated and the “incident” became a cause on social media.

The president issued a condemnation, students decried racism on campus, and black people reported being in fear for their lives.

In the immortal words of Emily Litella: “Never mind.”

Fox News:

A lost shoelace at Michigan State University caused a racial uproar Wednesday after someone mistook it for a noose.

MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon released a statement Wednesday morning saying she was “distressed” after finding out “a student reported a noose was hung outside of her room.” Simon commended the student’s “courage” for reporting the “racial incident” and put out a clear message.

“This type of behavior is not tolerated on our campus,” Simon said. “No Spartan should ever feel targeted based on their race, or other ways in which they identify.”

But by Wednesday afternoon, the investigation by MSU Police revealed there was no noose.

Instead, they found “the object was a packaged leather shoelace and not a noose,” MSU spokesman Jason Cody said in a news release, adding that the shoelaces “are packaged in a way that someone could perceive them to look similar to a noose.”

Officers tracked down and interviewed the student who lost both of the shoelaces. That student happens to live on the same floor as the one who made the report.

“Also, the original shoelace found inside the residence hall was not directed at any individual,” Cody said, adding that police believe someone found the shoelace and put it on a stairwell door handle after picking it up off the floor. CONTINUE AT SITE

Only 7 Percent of Yale Instructors Lean Conservative By Tom Knighton

While colleges talk a lot about diversity, conservatives hammer these same schools for focusing only on skin-deep matters like…well…skin. Rarely is there any concerted effort to make sure there is any kind of ideological diversity on their campuses. At least, that’s what folks on the right keep saying. But colleges keep acting like Kevin Bacon in Animal House, waving their hands and saying, “All is well!”

Only, it isn’t.

From The College Fix:

A new survey conducted by a student newspaper has revealed a staggering political divide among the faculty members of one of the nation’s most elite universities.

The Yale Daily Newsput a startling number on liberal predominance in a survey of the prestigious university’s faculty. Of the 314 respondents, a mere 7 percent identified as conservative, with only 2 percent saying they were “very conservative.” In contrast, nearly three-quarters identified as liberal or very liberal.

Speaking with with The News, Yale President Peter Salovey said the results were “neither positive nor negative.”

“It’s in the educational interest of students to be exposed to a diversity of political viewpoints… Having said that, in most fields, the political point of view of a faculty member is not relevant to the substance of their teaching, and so we would need to be very careful about making it a part of the hiring process for faculty,” Salovey told The News.

Salovey has, however, declared that Yale’s largely white faculty represents the “single biggest problem” the university faces; and in 2015 the school pledged to spend more than $50 million to increase the racial makeup of the faculty, according to The News.

Really? Their ideological viewpoint is completely irrelevant, but their skin color is?

If the issue was latent racism in the hiring process, I could see why Salovey would express concern. That can ultimately hurt the school, so it makes sense.

Yet that doesn’t seem to be the worry here. No, only the skin tone of the faculty is important.

All this while dismissing any concerns over ideological diversity at all. Nice. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Kerfuffle Before the Storm By Claudia Rosett

With the phrase “the calm before the storm,” President Trump on Thursday evening kicked off one of the biggest media kerfuffles since his late-night tweet in May about “the constant negative press covfefe.” That mysterious locution produced a spate of stories speculating sardonically on what the president meant. We’re now hearing a similar round of mockery. But this was no late-night typo in a tweet, and while offended members of the media default to derision, it’s worth considering that the president quite likely sent a useful message to an audience that extends way beyond the White House press corps.

The setting was a dinner for top U.S. military commanders and their spouses, hosted by Trump in the White House State Dining Room. Trump invited reporters in for a brief photo-op. Flanked by military officials who have dedicated themselves to defending America and winning its wars, all gathered with their spouses under a big portrait of President Lincoln. Trump asked the reporters, “You guys know what this represents?”

“Tell us, sir,” said one of the reporters.

“Maybe it’s the calm before the storm,” said Trump. A reporter asked, “What storm?” Trump gave the oblique reply, “We have the world’s greatest military people in this room, I will tell you that.” A reporter asked, again, “What storm?” Trump said, “You’ll find out.”

The entire exchange lasted about 30 seconds. The reporters were thanked and dismissed. The media were left to speculate on whether the “storm” referred to impending military action again North Korea, or maybe plans to back away from President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, or something else, or nothing at all. Asked again by reporters on Friday what he meant by “the calm before the storm,” Trump again declined to clarify, saying again, “You’ll find out.”

This has been playing as a crazy-Trump story. CNN came out with the headline: “Trump is treating a potential war like a reality show cliffhanger,” and warned, “This is no reality show… His words — whether he means them as a tease, a threat or something in between — can have very real consequences.” Esquire called Trump “Our Reality TV President” and asked, “Will the season finale involve nuclear war with North Korea?” The New York Times called Trump’s comment “ominous.” NBC called it “provocative.” Politico called it “unprompted.” The Huffington Post, in a headline, called it “Bizarre.”

I’d call it smart. We don’t know precisely what the president had in mind. But we do know — or we ought to know — this: In world politics, there is a gathering storm that threatens America and our allies. There is a rising network of tyrannies hostile to American interests and values, including most prominently Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. The U.S. superpower can face down any one of these actors if it must, but the disturbing trajectory is that for years now — whatever their differences — they have effectively been making common cause against America and the requirements of a free and peaceful world order. They do illicit business together; they often back each other diplomatically, and they learn from each other just how much it is possible to get away with. Russia and China have been carrying out joint military maneuvers. North Korea, longtime weapons dealer to Iran, is cultivating an arsenal of nuclear missiles. The threats compound.

This trend accelerated dramatically during the years of America’s policies of retreat, appeasement, and surrender under President Obama. China, as part of its military buildup, sped up its construction of artificial islands topped with military bases clearly designed to threaten freedom of navigation along vital shipping routes in Southeast Asia. Russia snatched Crimea from Ukraine, and got away with it. Terrorist-sponsoring Iran extended its reach in the Middle East, and is currently benefitting from a rotten nuclear deal that paves its way to the bomb, accessorized with ballistic missiles. Syria disintegrated into war, which opened the way for both the rise of ISIS and military inroads by Vladimir Putin’s Russia into the Middle East. Libya, with America leading-from-behind, disintegrated into terrorist-infested chaos.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the Lone Wolf: Killing America With Kindness Linda Goudsmit,

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

For 55 years Americans have been expected to believe the “lone wolf” theory of murder. From President Kennedy’s shocking assassination to the savagery of radical Islamic terror and now the horrifying mass murder of concert goers in Las Vegas. In art and entertainment there is a term “suspension of disbelief” which is defined as the willingness to suspend one’s critical thinking faculties and believe the unbelievable. Suspension of disbelief is a participatory and voluntary experience of sacrificing logic for the sake of enjoyment.

Suspension of disbelief in the fifties happened when we went to the movies and allowed ourselves to believe that Clark Kent was Superman. Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter was fighting a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way.

Suspension of disbelief in 1963 was believing that President John F. Kennedy was killed by “lone wolf” Lee Harvey Oswald who shot a magic bullet that changed trajectories in mid-flight. Oswald was then conveniently murdered by terminally ill Jack Ruby. Skeptical Americans were very suspicious. After all, this was real life not the movies. The government doubled down on suspension of disbelief and the public was expected to believe the Warren Commission’s dubious conclusion that it was that “lone wolf” again shooting his magic bullet. The public was considered far too fragile to handle the truth. Suspension of disbelief applied to real life was rationalized as an altruistic act of kindness. Really?

On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by Islamic terrorists who hijacked passenger planes and flew them into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon killing over 3,000 Americans. No one could seriously posit the lone wolf theory so instead Americans were expected to believe the lone group theory – Al-Qaeda was the first enemy group to be identified. As the Islamic terrorist movement expanded more groups were created and terrorist attacks that could not be linked to a specific group were dismissed as lone wolf attacks.

Over and over again experts in Islamic theology and men and women who had lived in Islamic countries told America that there are no lone wolves. Even the terrorists themselves announced that Islam is Islam. There is no moderate Islam. Islamic terrorism is inspired by the commandments in the Koran that unite jihadis in violence against all infidels. Islamic terrorism is one of several jihadi tactics being used to re-establish the Islamic caliphate and impose sharia law worldwide.

Western left-wing liberal politicians and the colluding mainstream media continue to insist that Radical Islamic terror is not an existential threat. Instead they insist upon public suspension of disbelief and the belief in the lone wolf theory of murder. Why? Because it works!

Although it strains credulity – people WANT to believe the lone wolf theory because it calms their fears and makes them FEEL safe and secure. The problem is that feelings are not facts. We are not living in a Hollywood movie that ends in two hours. Suspension of disbelief is dangerous in real life. Islamic terrorism is a real fact of 21st century life and is an existential threat to the American way.

Muslim Brotherhood Political Infiltration on Steroids By Janet Levy

In 2008, during the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, United States v. Holy Land Foundation, a document published in 1991 outlined Muslim plans to take over America. An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group, seized in a 2004 FBI raid of the Virginia home of a Muslim Brotherhood operative, was presented during the trial as evidence of “a Civilization-Jihadist Process.” It outlined the Muslim Brotherhood goal to conduct a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”

For several decades, this well-organized and well-funded effort to subvert our constitutional republic and replace it with an Islamic government under Islamic law has focused on infiltrating all levels and branches of the U.S. government. More recently, the Muslim Brotherhood presence within the American political landscape has intensified, accelerated, and become more visible with the establishment of several nonprofit political action organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood stated goal of transforming American society from within in preparation for an eventual takeover is clearly moving forward fueled by the efforts of these groups and their burgeoning success within the umma or Muslim community.

As early as 1987, a declassified FBI confidential informant document described the Muslim Brotherhood as “political action front groups with no traceable ties to Muslim groups” that are organizing external political support to influence both public opinion in America and the U.S. government and its leadership. The informant who disclosed this information told authorities that the MB acknowledged the need to “peacefully get inside the United States Government” for the purpose of meeting “the ultimate goal of overthrowing all non-Islamic governments.”

In 2010, one such “peaceful” group, Project Mobilize, was created by M. Yasser Tabbara to empower and engage the political potential of the Muslim community. Its mission statement called for the exploitation of the growing political capital of the umma, the promotion of issues important to Muslim Americans and the development of strategies for political advocacy on their behalf. In 2011, Project Mobilize began fielding its first Muslim candidates for political office.

Project Mobilize’s founder, Tabbara, is a former executive director the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial. Other board members include Safaa Zarzour, the secretary general of another unindicted co-conspirator and Muslim Brotherhood front, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Oussama Jammal, vice president of the Mosque Foundation, a known center for terrorism fundraising and haven for Hamas operatives.

In 2014, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., representatives from eight Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups announced formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a political party for Muslims and the first religion-based political party in U.S. history. At the meeting, the founders disclosed their plans to expand Muslim participation in the American political process by encouraging more Muslims to vote, work on political campaigns and run for office themselves.

Oussama Jammal, who was involved in fundraising for convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian and serves as director of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliate, the Muslim American Society (MAS), headed the new organization. MAS, created in the early 1990s, was itself begun as the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was designated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates. Mazen Mokhtar, another USCMO founding member, also had MAS ties, having served as its executive director. An Egyptian-born imam, Mokhtar served as webmaster for a site that solicited funds for Taliban and Chechen jihadists. In 2007, he was indicted by then-New Jersey Attorney General Chris Christie for tax evasion and filing false tax returns.

Former NYT Editor Warns Paper to be Careful About Trump Coverage There’s a certain type of commentary that can be twisted by critics as ‘gloating’ or ‘overkill.’ by Diana Crandall see note please

As a Wall St. Journal reporter Abramson wrote a maliciously biased book about the Anita Hill/ Clarence Thomas controversy, air-brushing and obfuscating evidence that contradicted Hill’s claims. rsk
Abramson, the former executive editor of the New York Times, used White House reporter Glenn Thrush as an example of how reporters shouldn’t talk about President Trump.“On Twitter, Glenn Thrush, an otherwise great reporter, has tweeted that Trump had ‘breathtaking chutzpah,’ that he ‘will never get over the shock of waking up and seeing the leader of the free world spouting demonstrably false information,’” Abramson recounted in a recent analysis of the paper’s political coverage. While Thrush’s observations may be true, Abramson wrote, they are opinions — and it’s exactly that type of commentary that can be twisted by critics as “gloating” or “overkill” — and that can hurt the paper’s historic, unrelenting and overall accurate coverage of the administration.

The column:


Jill Abramson is a former executive editor of The New York Times. She also writes a political column for The Guardian and is finishing a book on the transformation of the news industry. She is a senior lecturer in the English department of Harvard University.

Since the election, The New York Times has toughened everything about its coverage of Donald Trump, from the choice of words it uses to describe what he says to the number of reporters assigned to cover and investigate him. Like everyone else, the Times underestimated his chances of being elected. Although it published impressive investigations of his taxes, treatment of women, and real-estate deals, it was only after his surprise victory that the dimensions of Russia’s interference in the election and ties to Trump were examined and revealed.

In recent months, the Times has been in a running one-upmanship battle with The Washington Post, a thrilling journalistic display that has reinforced the importance of the few national news organizations left that still have the muscle to do this kind of reporting. “The role of the press is clearer now than it’s ever been,” said Executive Editor Dean Baquet on CBS’s Face the Nation in February. The quixotic nature of the new administration, the president’s serial lies (the word Baquet was right to use on the front page), and the false narratives that tumble out of the White House daily cry out for this kind of accountability journalism.