RUTHFULLY YOURS

Someone behind an anonymous Twitter account is trying to destroy the influential conservative Breitbart News website by smearing it as “racist” – and he’s already scared at least 47 advertisers away from Breitbart.

In the current atmosphere of left-wing hysteria over the surprise election of Donald Trump as president, this blacklisting project has already earned an impressive return on investment. Breitbart is a target of the wrath of social justice warriors because it reports the truth about the Left and it used to be run by Stephen Bannon, now slated to become chief strategist in the Trump White House. Hurting Breitbart hurts Trump and Republicans in general, the thinking goes.

The campaign takes screenshots of advertisements on Breitbart and then harasses the advertisers, demanding that they stop advertising there. It also encourages people who hate Breitbart or Trump to take screenshots of a target company’s ads placed beside content deemed objectionable and tweet the images at advertisers along with a threat to stop patronizing that company.

The cowardly crusader hiding behind this effort to frighten advertisers away from Breitbart by lying about and mischaracterizing the provocative news website’s content goes by the user name Sleeping Giants.

The user’s identity seems safe for the moment but if Breitbart files a defamation lawsuit, Twitter could be forced to disclose the user’s identity.

So far the identity of the individual or individuals behind Sleeping Giants is not known, except to Shareen Pathak, managing editor at the DigiDay blog.

Pathak reports, “The creator of the account said he would prefer to remain anonymous to avoid being harassed by Trump supporters on the internet. He said he started the account because fake news and disinformation, are, in his opinion, two of the reasons why the election turned out in favor of Trump.”

The creator of Sleeping Giants reportedly told DigiDay, “The biggest way that this disinformation will continue is ad revenue, just like any news source. Beyond really wanting to stop this nonsense, this effort was really born out of the need to inform advertisers about the kind of material that they’re sponsoring. This isn’t supposed to be a boycotting effort as much as an information effort.”

The Sleeping Giants (Twitter handle: @slpng_giants) account was created last month. At time of writing the account had 3,144 tweets and 11,200 followers. Sleeping Giants says “We are trying to stop racist websites by stopping their ad dollars. Many companies don’t even know it’s happening. It’s time to tell them.”

In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie discusses Soledad O’Brien’s Disgrace on Castro, unveiling the shame of arguing how there are Cubans who “like” a mass murderer. Don’t miss it! And make sure to watch Jamie focus on Steve Bannon, Keith Ellison and the Left’s Ugly Record on Anti-Semitism, revealing the slander of a noble […]

Remember when Hillary Clinton won a landslide victory? The fake news media which predicted it in order to depress pro-Trump voter turnout certainly does. And so they’re out to fight “fake news.”

By fake news, they don’t mean their own raging torrent of misinformation and lies.

The media has gone to war against Facebook. While various supporters have blamed Hillary’s loss on everything from the FBI to internalized misogyny, the media has decided that Facebook is to blame.

Why Facebook?

Cable news is dying. Newspapers struggle online and offline. The mainstream media’s profitability lives and dies by social media. But the essence of social media is that it allows communities to shape what they see. That’s a terrifying idea if you’re a media conglomerate that depends on its megaphone.

But it’s also scary if you’re a leftist running for office in a country that doesn’t agree with your views.

Obama blamed “messaging” for the election results. But messaging requires being able to reach people. And that means clearing competitive voices out of the social media space by banning conservatives.

The war on conservative media is being conducted under the guise of banishing “fake news” from Facebook. But the fake news devil is in the details. Fake news can mean satire sites like the Onion or the Daily Currant. It can mean foreign clickbait sites that invent fake news. But it can also mean sites from outside the mainstream media whose stories are contested by the left for partisan reason.

The war on fake news is a smoke screen for a campaign against conservative media. And it’s easy to see that it’s conservative sites that are the real target of the Facebook book burners.

Buzzfeed, which depends heavily on Facebook traffic , has fed the “fake news” hysteria. Its list of “fake news” sites includes “hyperpartisan” sites. Its story contrasting “legitimate” mainstream media outlets, a category that somehow includes the Huffington Post, with a variety of right-leaning sites is a major piece of supporting evidence used in the fake news crusade.

Considering BuzzFeed’s history of fake news stories that fit its political narrative, it has no credibility fact checking anyone else. Examinations of BuzzFeed’s own methodology for its fake news article tore it into tiny little shreds. Its claim that fake news outperformed real news turned out to be… fake.

But what’s more important is how quickly the goal posts have been moved from fake news to conservative news, from fraudulent sites to fighting “clickbait” or “hyperpartisan” sites. And it’s clear that these are largely a euphemism for sites on the right that are outperforming the media.

Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of The New York Times, and Dean Baquet, executive editor, issued their reflection to their readers. After reviewing it several times, I realized that the election of Donald J. Trump to the highest office in our country did much more than anyone could have anticipated. Not only did Trump fight the establishment, press and academia, and motivate American citizens to awaken from an eight-year period of fear and despair to demand a reversal of Obama’s executive orders, but he inspired the principals to make an unprecedented outreach to the public with a kind of desultory apology. They professed a purpose of rededication “to report to America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories…impartially and unflinchingly.” Although it was their use of biased analyses and writing assumptions over accuracies that diminished their readership, it is evident that they miss the point when they attempt to reassure their depleted readership that they can they can “rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage.” It is precisely that same coverage and same corruption that the American public will no longer tolerate.

Is it possible for a publisher and executive director to plan for a future without defining and owning up to the past? Will they re-educate the same staff writers who pandered to the establishment, the leftists and the globalists; the Soros- and Islamic-supported hatemongers of (BLM) Black Lives Matter, J-Street, (SJP) Students for Justice in Palestine and the (MSA) Muslim Student Association; the anti-Semitic revisionists; the corrupt elitists and academicians who delight in seeing their skewed views validated; the youths, immersed in socialism, who have been taught not how to think, but what to feel; and the populace that could not discern fact from propaganda?

Upon what standard lies were the Times readers nourished? When the Times repeatedly accused Israel of planning new “developments” northeast of Jerusalem that would allegedly split Judea-Samaria (West Bank), despite the map that was produced to prove the impossibility of their claim, a correction was never issued. When they claimed that singer-songwriter Eric Burdon was boycotting Israel, it was another falsehood not rescinded. When an article blamed Ariel Sharon’s entry into the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem in 2000 for triggering the second intifada, he truth was that Sharon never entered the mosque and the second intifada was verified to have been planned in advance. When the Times repeatedly asserts that Gaza is occupied by Israel, but Israelis left in 2005 and Hamas is the sole occupier. When John Kerry spoke about brokering peace between Israel and Palestinians, and The New York Times amended it with a Palestinian narrative. Israel is routinely portrayed by the Times as being the obstacle to peace, while the Palestinians have consistently rejected all Israeli positions.