FEAR AND TREMBLING IN SPEECH AND THOUGHT: THE DEGENERATION OF MEDIA IN AMERICA
At Least Sixty-Four Percent of Americans Generally, and 80% of People in the Arts, Are Afraid to Share Their Views
My point is to simply provide a taste of what is happening in our world of speech and thought. I am doing this through a series of vignettes. Some of them were offered in my 2021 book “Un-Canceling” America that contained over 600 examples of speech suppression and provided a sense of the radical systems, motives and methodologies being used to inhibit free speech, and to cloud and suppress free thought. The examples look to what is going on in America but the “Cancelation and Speech Suppression Phenomenon” is global. It is not only in America, but throughout Europe and Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and many other nations.
The “Qualitative” Future of the Human Race
I want to begin by stating I have great admiration for numerous writers from the 1950s and 1960s who saw and understood the ongoing social transformation with brilliant, if depressing, clarity. Jacques Ellul is one example, and Paul Tournier another. Tournier captured the essence of the cultural forces when he observed that our thinking, feelings, and world views are shaped by the media with which we interact and the propaganda manipulations to which we are subjected, even in our educational systems. To these we can add the incredible power of the Internet and social media systems to which we have become addicted over the last thirty years.
“[People] have become merely cogs in the machine of production, tools, functions. All that matters is what they do, not what they think or feel. . . . [T]heir thoughts and feelings are ... moulded by propaganda, press, cinema and radio. They read the same newspaper each day, hear the same slogans, see the same advertisements.” Paul Tournier, The Meaning of Persons 40 (Edward Hudson trans., Harper & Brothers 1957).
In the same vein the brilliant French philosopher Jacques Ellul observed in the 1960s that modern individuals had become so captured by the specialized jargon and concepts of what he described as the “Technological Society” that they had lost the ability to understand or communicate with others outside their own fields of activity or interest. See, Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (Alfred A. Knopf 1964).
I have the deepest dedication to the Enlightenment ideal of seeking to develop myself into the best individual entity I am capable of becoming. Even with such an impossible to achieve “ideal”, I remain committed to the essence it represents. Unfortunately, there is an abandonment of the centrality of individual development that is represented by Aristotle’s concept of “Eudaemonia” that represents the fullest development of our individual talents and insights that collectively combine to integrate our improvement as a universal species among various political movements and philosophies.
The challenge we now face is that if we become unable and unwilling to communicate and interact with others over principles, agreements and disagreements and refuse to even consider or assess the meaning of critical needs and conditions we no longer evolve nor exist in a healthy community. As did Tournier and Ellul, I try to suggest in this offering that if the concepts we are subjected to through our instrumentalities of learning, perception and knowledge are incomplete, untruthful, one-sided manipulations and the like that is the “being” we will become—limited, blind, resentful and at odds with each other.
Israeli academic Yuval Noah Harari, author of several insightful and fascinating books, including Homo Deus, describes a shift away from the idea of individual development to group and collective identities in which our personal “being” is sublimated within a group-think that provides us with structure, meaning, human connection and a sense of identity. We are undercutting the ideal of the fullest individual development and substituting for a new “ideal” with a set of “individual” collective “Hives”.
A key point Harari and others have made is that the flow of data available to humans has become so immense that it overwhelms our ability to take in the information in the first place, much less our capacity to absorb, integrate, understand its totality of meaning, and interactive “fit”. This makes it impossible for a human to gain full and comprehensive understanding of the world, at least in terms of information mass, meaning and flow. More consequentially, it also makes us unwilling and incapable to understand or communicate meaningfully with those who are not members of our collective “Hive”.
“Framing”, Narratives, a “Lusting” Thirst for Power, and Orwellian Thought Control Through Allowable and Banned Language
The linguist and historian Ruth Nanda Anshen once stated our situation perfectly when she warned that humans do not only use language but become the language they use. This reality is at the heart of the strategy we are calling “cancel culture”. The point is that if our children are indoctrinated during their educational journeys with the allowable language through what have for more than thirty years been a process of propaganda and “grooming” for a life of one-sided protest and action they “become” the concepts to which they are subjected in their schools.
This is one reason there has been such a raging and primitive rise in anti-semitism to the point of violence, and support for Hamas and Iran even after their incredible and deliberate murders, rape, and torture of several thousand innocent people. The fanatics “are almost inescapably who they are” because all the messages they have been fed by controlling fanatics provide a one-sided and false version of their own highly limited and superficial knowledge.
Many of us have been molded into what the Left and the Progressives love to condemn as “haters”. Their own levels of hate and willingness to resort to violence are fully sufficient to shut down critical thought. Their irrationally voiced aggression and ignorance causes others who might otherwise seek to have an honest discussion about their views to be silent. One result is the projection of a false belief in what “they” are saying just to avoid the conflicted reactions, consequences and potential physical and other forms of systemic violence that could occur, or to avoid the haters entirely which is exactly what appears to be taking place. We no longer “talk” to each other as opposed to “shout”.
While there are numerous ways to describe the meaning and aims intended by the term Cancel Culture, by whatever name the reality is that it has expanded into our media, our Internet platforms, governmental agencies, powerful activist groups, universities, K-12 educational systems, political parties, and businesses. Nor is the threat one lurking in our children’s distant future. Cancel Culture is a tool, a very powerful strategic device, and a weapon for control of our minds and a definer of who we are.
Many teachers, administrators, media and others are behind the push for control and it is happening as we speak. Its controlling and intimidation function remains as a powerful and easily accessible tool to dismantle our nation and recreate it in their own darker image. The fundamental institutions and systems by which we communicate, compete, learn, interact, grow and create are being undermined. These include education, law, our economy, political relationships, research, policy, creativity, our intellectual lives and even our essential humanity.
Some “cancelations” are only irritating intrusions on daily life, but many others are harsh and draconian. For too many people throughout the world the outcome of being “canceled” is torture, execution, imprisonment, or death through abuse and neglect. A non-conforming journalist who speaks the accurate truth is likely to be arrested, shot or poisoned in Russia in staged situations. Alexei Navalny, one of my personal heroes, was murdered in a Russian prison camp after years of abuse, poisoning, and trumped up accusations. The incredibly brave Hong Kong journalist Jimmy Lai has been imprisoned in China for years and will most likely die in a dark Chinese prison simply for speaking out against Xi Jinping’s regime. Imprisonment and executions for blasphemy are increasing in Iran against anyone who dares to challenge the Ayatollah’s regime, however gently and honestly, and you are at great risk simply for being a Christian in Pakistan or any number of other Muslim majority countries.
The Strategic Suppression of Journalists and Writers
Katie Couric Calls for “De-Programming” of Trump Supporters
“Katie Couric ‘Jeopardy!’ gig in peril? Producers fear she’s ‘too polarizing’ after anti-GOP comments: The veteran journalist suggested Republicans be ‘deprogrammed’ because of their support for Trump”, Joseph A. Wulfsohn, 1/23/21. https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeopardy-katie-couric-deprogram.
“Couric appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” where she spent much of the show trashing President Trump in his final days in office. But what made headlines were her comments about Trump’s backers on Capitol Hill who fueled the former president’s election challenge. … “I also think some of them are believing the garbage that they are being fed 24/7 on the internet, by their constituents, and they bought into this big lie. And the question is how are we going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump.”
“De-programming” and “De-platforming” Trump Supporters
https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-media-members-deprogramming-deplatforming-trump-supporters. “Liberal media, Big Tech increase calls to ‘deprogram,’ deplatform Trump supporters: Lincoln Project threatens Expedia group: ‘You will feel immense pain if we fight’”, David Rutz, 1/18/21.
“Liberal journalists and social media voices have stepped up their calls to “deprogram,” deplatform or outright threaten right-leaning voices in the aftermath of the deadly Capitol riot earlier this month. … Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson in the aftermath of the [January 6] riot … said last week on MSNBC “there are millions of Americans, almost all White, almost all Republicans, who somehow need to be deprogrammed,” calling them members of a “Trumpist cult.”
The fear of being canceled is pervasive.
“Nearly a third of Americans said they’re afraid their political views may cost them their jobs or career opportunities. A survey commissioned by ArtsProfessional magazine found that more than 80 percent of the 500 professionals thought that “workers in the arts and cultural sector who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised. One said: “Our arts, culture, and indeed education sectors are supposed to be fearlessly free-thinking and open to a wide range of challenging views. However, they are now dominated by a monolithic politically correct class … This is slowly destroying our society and culture from the inside.” “80% of People in Arts Fear ‘Controversial Opinions’ Risk Professional Ostracism”, 2/22/20.
“The ‘Great Divide’: Understanding US Political Polarization”, Diane Stirling. Oct. 23, 2025.
“Johanna Dunaway, research director at Syracuse University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship and a political science professor, explains how partisan viewpoints, news consumption and misperceptions fuel America’s divisions. Americans increasingly see the country as more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Pew Research Center polling reveals a sharp rise in partisan hostility: in 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats viewed the opposing party as more immoral than other Americans—up dramatically from 47% and 35% in 2016. …. Unfortunately, the patterns of information we end up being exposed to still exacerbate divisions.” She says the blame is tied to the economic model of today’s media landscape. “Underlying media emphasis on the extreme and outrageous is that most digital media relies on attention metrics like clicks and because competition for the public’s attention is so intense. Media outlets face strong economic incentives to publish and promote the most attention-grabbing content,” she says.”
Michael Beller (PBS).
“A Project Veritas video reveals Michael Beller, then PBS Principal Counsel, “celebrating the death of Trump supporters and calling for their re-education while admitting he’d participate in violent acts if Joe Biden lost the presidency. … His hatred of Trump supporters continues, positing they’ll “be raising a generation of intolerant, horrible people – horrible kids.”
“He proposes “re-education camps. He … refers to them as “enlightenment camps,” adding that Biden’s Homeland Security officials would “take” Trump supporters’ children away”. Even if Biden wins, we go for all the Republican voters and Homeland Security will take their children away […] And we’ll put them into re-education camps. Beller … also reveals that if Biden didn’t replace Trump as President, he’d “go to the White House and throw Molotov cocktails.”
Sanders Staffers Praise Gulags and Re-Education Camps. https://www.theepochtimes.com/second-bernie-sanders-staffer-praises-gulags_3211013.html. “Second Bernie Sanders Staffer Praises Gulags”, Zachary Stieber, 1/21/20.
“Two of former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ “Bernie Bros” revealed the Progressive, Antifa, and part of BLM perspective when they praised Joseph Stalin’s use of gulags as “re-education camps”. Prior to the nomination of Joe Biden, they said that such internments could be used in the US once Sanders was elected and Socialists took control.
According to a Project Veritas report, Martin Weissgerber, a field organizer for Sanders, said: “[H]e’s ready for the “[expletive] revolution” and that he hopes to “guillotine the rich” and “send Republicans to reeducation camps.” [He added] “Do we just dissolve the Senate, House of Representatives, the Judicial Branch and have somebody like Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people make all decisions for the climate?” he said. “I mean, I’m serious. What will help is when we send all the Republicans to the ‘reeducation’ camps’.” Another Sanders organizer, Kyle Jurek, reportedly stated Trump supporters might be thrown into “gulags.” Zachary Stieber, 1/21/20.”
Federal judge warns ‘dangerous’ media has ‘very close to one-party control’
Judge Laurence Silberman of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia wrote a scathing dissent opinion in a case involving defamation and the state of America’s controlling media institutions. I am including some of his very accurate comments here.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/federal-judge-laurence-silberman. “Federal judge warns ‘dangerous’ media has ‘very close to one-party control’ in blistering libel case dissent: Judge Laurence Silberman calls New York Times, Washington Post ‘virtually Democratic Party broadsheets’”, Joseph A. Wulfsohn, 3/19/21.
“D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman went on an unprecedented written tirade against the press, in which he argued that the Supreme Court should revisit the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling that granted the media broad First Amendment protections from being sued by public officials. “[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy,” he write. “It must go.” “The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” said Silberman, who has been a senior judge on the D.C. Circuit Court since 2000.
“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s,” Silberman wrote. “Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.” The Reagan-appointed judge [also] accused Silicon Valley of filtering news “in ways favorable to the Democratic Party” and fueling censorship, citing the suppression of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election. “It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,’” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”
Silberman also sounded the alarm about the “serious efforts to muzzle” outlets like Fox News that aren’t under “Democratic Party ideological control.” [He warns] “It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” the judge continued. “It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. “The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”
“Gray Lady” Down: They Came for the Decaying New York Times and the Times Willingly “Canceled” Its Own Integrity
See, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping. “Inside China’s audacious global propaganda campaign: Beijing is buying up media outlets and training scores of foreign journalists to ‘tell China’s story well’ – as part of a worldwide propaganda campaign of astonishing scope and ambition”, Louisa Lim and Julia Bergin, The Guardian, 12/7/18.
Intolerant “groupthink” and repression of views seen as incompatible with the emergent ideology has infected our entire culture, not only the American system of higher education, but journalists whose legitimacy is founded on the duty to pursue truth and report based on honest evidence and reasoned analysis. Instead of honest truth and legitimate analysis we are fed a diet of “outrage”, one-sided passion and opinion, and clever twisting of carefully selected “facts”.
Journalism has been transformed into one-sided propaganda diatribes that would make the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda operatives envious. Reports even indicate that the CCP has paid news outlets such as the Washington Post and New York Times large sums of money to publish favorable stories on China as part of that nation’s propaganda strategy. We seem to find out almost daily about being betrayed by a significant proportion of academics, biased journalists, and other “intellectuals” who are being compensated by China.
Alex Berenson—“It’s not me, it’s the Times.”
“Alex Berenson on ‘censorship’, free speech: ‘Times have changed and the NY Times has changed’: ‘If you knew my voting record you’d think I should be speaking at the ACLU not CPAC,’ journalist says.”, Charles Creitz, 2/26/21. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cpac-alex-berenson-censorship-free-speech-ny-times.
“Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson slammed the mainstream media and Big Tech for its continued attempts to censor and “deplatform” views it does not like or does not want to debate, during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla. … “I’m honestly surprised as any of you that I’m here -- if you knew my voting record you’d think I should be speaking at the ACLU, not CPAC,” he said at the conference. … Berenson said that he and other classical liberals have not changed their views on freedom of expression or open public discourse: “It’s not me, it’s the Times,” he said adding that columnists at liberal mainstream papers like the Grey Lady have pivoted to routinely call for censorship of their political opponents. “I never would’ve imagined being on Fox, while the Times either ignored me or tried to bash me.” Berenson made clear the threat of censorship from powerful entities comes both from public and private concerns: the government, Big Tech and media. The pro-censorship crowd is frustrated, he said, because they are recognizing their inability to control public narratives as easily as they want, given the diaspora of media and technology in recent years. … “This censorship is still happening -- a lot of people still can’t get their stuff published on Amazon.”
The New York Times Report on the “Mostly Peaceful Riots” That Destroyed Businesses, Killed Numerous People, and Caused Close to $2 Billion in Damages
https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/the-times-is-trying-to-gaslight-you-about-the-summers-riots/. “The Times is trying to gaslight you about the summer’s riots”, Jonathan S. Tobin, 3/23/21.
“We should have expected this: Nine months after the death of George Floyd triggered a massive wave of riots and looting, The New York Times has issued a lengthy report about what happened — and blamed it all on the police. In a recent front-page story headlined, “In City After City, Police Mishandled Black Lives Matter Protests,” the paper predictably lays the entire blame on cops, rather than on radicals who wrecked commercial districts and caused at least 25 deaths and thousands of injuries. In the heat of the crisis, mainstream outlets called the riots “protests.” It was an eye-wateringly brazen attempt at gaslighting, belied, in some cases, by reporters claiming the “protesters” were “mostly peaceful,” even as the cityscapes behind them were ablaze. …
The recent Times story fit neatly into a narrative about police brutality, in which predatory, violent cops are spreading havoc rather than keeping the peace. The report portrays police across the nation as “poorly trained, heavily militarized and unprepared” for mass unrest. It’s true that cops need more funding for recruitment and training. They also need better riot equipment, as well as more intelligence about radicals planning mayhem (the role of “protesters” who arrived in armor and prepared for guerrilla warfare was conspicuous by its absence from the Times report).
For starters, the summer uprising itself was unjustifiable: There is no statistical evidence of an epidemic of police violence; cops aren’t in the business of hunting down and killing unarmed African-Americans. Some cops screw up and overreact in difficult situations, with sometimes tragic consequences. But too often, journalists — the same ones now blaming cops for riots — misreport these incidents, creating martyrdom narratives that can’t withstand factual scrutiny. The notion that cops brutalized the BLM protesters on a mass scale is equally false. In fact, in many cases, cops were ordered to stand down and let the rioters run wild, rather than risk the kind of mass casualties that might have resulted had they attempted to stop the burning and looting. … In some instances, police even abandoned police stations and other government facilities rather than defend them. Citizens who lost their businesses or jobs or were injured no doubt regretted the abdication. Almost everywhere, it was the protesters who initiated violence. Cops showed heroic patience, as they were physically assaulted and subjected to vile, often-racist insults.”
The New York Times’ Divided Newsroom
The New York Times was once the center of thought and truth and above all else could be trusted. Now, like many, I see the Times as an unreliable and biased political instrument with reporters I do not trust. My sadness is in fact “legion”.
“Anger inside the New York Times as divided newsroom erupts in debate over recent controversies”, Oliver Darcy, CNN Business, 2/11/21. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/10/media/new-york-times-donald-mcneil-andy-mills/index.html.
“The announcement Friday of the departure of two high-profile journalists from The Times has spurred what some staffers have described as unprecedented levels of divisiveness and controversy inside the newsroom, with staffers warring with each other in private, on Facebook, and even in public on Twitter. The sequence of events led many inside and outside The Times to believe that management had been pressured to take the action it did by what several staffers characterized as a “vocal minority.” “I hate to say this, but inside The Times there is a ‘cancel culture,’” one staffer at The Times commented to CNN Business. The staffer, echoing what several other Times journalists told CNN Business in separate conversations, described a dynamic where “there is not much infighting, but there is a small group of people who are very vocal” and who, this staffer said, do not appear to be satisfied until “heads roll.”
Bari Weiss, New York Times. Weiss was one of the few conservative voices at the New York Times. She made an explosive exit explaining the treatment afforded by her young Leftist colleagues. Weiss wrote a powerful resignation letter to Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger stating the reasons she was resigning.
“These included being called a Nazi and a racist by colleagues, and management’s “failure to defend her against internal and external bullying; senior editors’ abandonment of the paper’s ostensible commitment to publishing news and opinion that stray from an ideological orthodoxy; and the capitulation of many Times reporters and senior editors to the prevailing intolerance of far-left mobs on Twitter, which she called the paper’s ‘ultimate editor.’ [prior to Elon Musk’s acquisition of X]”
Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter writes: “All I want … is a fair chance to present my views and and do it to an audience that needs to hear them,” Berenson explained. Berenson had his books on the Pandemic banned by Amazon. [He stated] “it’s becoming harder and harder to have honest conversations”. “Censorship of opposing views on COVID is a huge problem,” Berenson [said]. “
“And it’s part of an even bigger problem. “My booklet is about masks, and obviously I’d like everyone to read it and understand how weak the science in favor of mask mandates really is,” he explained. “But this isn’t about masks and it isn’t even about COVID. It’s about whether or not as a society we’re going to allow people who have views that are outside what the mainstream media want you to believe to present those views, and that’s true in both old media and social media.”
Andy Mills, now a former New York Times journalist, “has resigned following the controversy surrounding the paper’s now-discredited podcast series “Caliphate.” …
“Though Mills stated he remains “proud” of the work that went into “Caliphate,” he acknowledged that “getting any aspect of any story wrong, by any degree, is a journalist’s worst nightmare” and that despite the Times’ correction, his peers in the industry “began to raise questions about why I had been allowed to remain in my position. … One masthead editor even made it a point to tell me: ‘I won’t let you blame yourself.’ “But another story emerged online: that my lack of punishment came down to entitlement and male privilege. That accusation gave some the opportunity to resurface my past personal conduct.”
James Bennet, New York Times. “Bennet, a senior editor at the New York Times, was forced out after publication of an op-ed by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton explaining that it could be necessary to approve the use of troops through the Insurrection Act in quelling the urban riots that occurred throughout the Summer of 2020.
“The Times’ “progressive” staff rebelled. They were outraged that the “Gray Lady” would dare to publish something contrary to their own political positions. Like nearly all such media outlets, they were “in fear”, “felt unsafe”, or “emotionally disturbed”. Perhaps they would benefit from a gift of pacifiers so they don’t have to suck their thumbs excessively. Or should hire a “shrink” to help them deal with their anxiety. The one thing they should not have the power to do is control American’s access to reliable information.”
Matt Taibbi reports that a day after Bennet was fired, his replacement, Kathleen Kingsbury, communicated her own “limp” perspective to the staff, one reflective of the fact that we are dealing with spoiled children posing as journalists.
“The American Press Is Destroying Itself: A flurry of newsroom revolts has transformed the American press”, Matt Taibbi, 6/12/20. ”
.
“Kathleen Kingsbury, issued a staff directive essentially telling employees they now had a veto over anything that made them uncomfortable: “Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
“NY Times says it needs culture change, better inclusion”, David Bauder, 2/25/21. https://apnews.com/article/ny-times-culture-change-inclusion-1dbd01abdffb9c05001ede64dcb68f5a.
“The New York Times says it needs a culture change to become a better place to work, particularly for people of color. The newspaper told its employees in a report Wednesday that it will take steps to be more inclusive and welcoming, saying its study of the workplace culture represents a “call to action.” … The report also said that a workplace culture that celebrates individual achievement and often relies on “unwritten rules” for advancement can be uncomfortable for many, but particularly people of color. … Carolyn Ryan, deputy managing editor and one of three authors of the report [stated] “It was our culture, this kind of ‘sink or swim’ ethos.” … But the report found that while the Times was building a more diverse staff, it concentrated less on fostering an inclusive culture.”
What the Hell Is a “Sensitivity Read”?
“New York Times Guild mocked for requesting ‘sensitivity reads’ in its publication process”, Joseph A. Wulfsohn, 7/31/20. https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-guild-sensitivity-reads. Apparently the management of the Times is serious about its capitulation to what can be called “political commissars”. Joseph Wulfsohn reports:
“The New York Times Guild raised eyebrows on Friday for recommending “sensitivity reads” as part of the paper’s publication process. The group of unionized journalists revealed they have met with Times leadership earlier in the month, stressing that the paper needs “a top-to-bottom resetting of priorities to improve the working conditions of our colleagues of color.” The guild urged its employer to diversify its workforce to 24 percent Black employees and over 50 percent people of color by 2025 as an apparent reflection of the New York City population. They also called for a minimum of job applicants to be people of color and that staff of color should be added to the Standards team as well as investing in mentorship programs. However, one particular request sparked some confusion on social media. “Get it right from the beginning: sensitivity reads should happen at the beginning of the publication process, with compensation for those who do them,” the Times Guild wrote.
Such capitulations should strike fear in the heart of any legitimate journalist. At least among more experienced journalists and media management, the problem is being caused in large part by a combination of economics and fear of losing their jobs rather than by their individual politics. The traditional print media industry is shrinking at an enormous rate and reporters are understandably afraid of losing their jobs with nowhere to go if they are cut loose. Offending other staff and leaders can result in the loss of your job even if you are in a senior position. With the “Cancel Culture” you can also have to deal with a relentless public shaming campaign and being made unemployable. As the New York Magazine’s former employee Andrew Sullivan indicated after losing his job, it was not related to the quality of his work but to the politics and biases of the workplace.
Bret Stephens Shows Journalistic Integrity
“New York Times columnist Bret Stephens bashes paper’s handling of Tom Cotton column”, Brian Flood, 6/12/20. https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-columnist-bret-stephens-bashes-papers-handling-of-tom-cotton-column.
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens blasted his own paper’s decision to disavow Senator Tom Cotton’s op-ed about the possible use of the Insurrection Act and the violent unrest across the US that followed George Floyd‘s horrific death as “an invitation to intellectual cowardice.” As liberal staffers publicly turned on the Gray Lady, Stephens’ analysis, “What The Times Got Wrong Tom Cotton speaks for a large part of this country. Will we not listen?” directly criticizes his employer over the way the ordeal unfolded. Stephens wrote that despite “nobody” at the paper agreeing with the arguments in Senator Cotton’s op-ed, the Times’ decision to disavow it is “a gift to the enemies of a free press.” He added:
“Serious journalism, complete with a vigorous exchange of ideas, cannot survive in an atmosphere in which modest intellectual risk-taking or minor offenses against new ideological orthodoxies risk professional ruin. It is a violation of the principles that are supposed to sustain the profession, particularly our obligation to give readers a picture of the world as it really is,” Stephens wrote. “And, as the paper dismisses distinguished journalists along with controversial opinions, it’s an invitation to intellectual cowardice.”
The Wall Street Journal’s Response to James Bennet’s Firing
https://www.foxnews.com/media/wsj-editorial-board-cancel-culture-criticism. “WSJ Editorial Board says it won’t ‘wilt under cancel-culture pressure’ after staffers criticize coverage: ‘We are not The New York Times’, says note to readers”, Julia Musto, David Montanaro, 7/24/20.
To its credit, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board responded to the New York Times’ actions by saying:
The purge of senior editors at progressive newspapers this weekend is no cause for cheering. Their resignations are another milestone in the march of identity politics and cancel culture through our liberal institutions, and American journalism and democracy will be worse for it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/cancel-culture-journalism-11591658340. “Cancel Culture Journalism: Two liberal editors fall for violations against progressive orthodoxy”, The Editorial Board, 6/8/20.
Like the Times, the Wall Street Journal is dealing with staff dissension over political orientations. Unlike the Times, the WSJ remains focused on its journalistic function. See, https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-note-to-readers-11595547898. “A Note to Readers: These pages won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure”, The Editorial Board, 7/23/20. The WSJ Board observes:
“We’ve been gratified this week by the outpouring of support from readers after some 280 of our Wall Street Journal colleagues signed (and someone leaked) a letter to our publisher criticizing the opinion pages. But the support has often been mixed with concern that perhaps the letter will cause us to change our principles and content. On that point, reassurance is in order.”
Julia Must and David Montanaro report:
“It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic, and journalistic institution. But we are not the New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media,” the note stated.”
Stan Wischnowski, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Wischnowski, a top editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer, lost his job because he published an article by the paper’s architecture critic with the headline “Buildings Matter, Too.” The Inquirer’s staff was predictably “outraged”.
“Forty-four mostly young “journalists of color,” sent a letter to the paper’s “leadership” indicating their disgust that the headline appeared. Stan Wischnowski was quickly gone. The most chilling line in the letter from the self-styled “journalists of color” read: “We’re tired of being told to show both sides of issues there are no two sides of.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/publishers-trump-memoir-ban-book-deal-b1788904.html. “Hundreds of writers and book agents sign joint letter demanding publishing industry bans Trump memoir: More than 250 signatories say there should be no book deals for ‘an administration that caged children’ and encouraged a ‘coup’”, Gino Spocchia, 1/18/21.
“Editors, publishing agents and authors have signed-up to a letter in the hundreds, demanding the industry deny Donald Trump the publication of any post-presidential memoir. The letter, titled “No Book Deals for Traitors,” was signed by more than 250 editors, authors and publishing agents last week. Together, they oppose any Trump administration official from publishing a future book - including the outgoing president, who is rumoured to be considering a memoir. Barry Lyga, a novelist who organised the letter, wrote that “As members of the writing and publishing community of the United States, we affirm that participation in the administration of Donald Trump must be considered a uniquely mitigating criterion for publishing houses when considering book deals.”
Regnery’s Thomas Spence: “Americans argue, write, preach, campaign and vote. They don’t blacklist.”
“Publishing exec slams industry’s ‘blacklist’ trend, defends plan to publish Josh Hawley’s book: ‘Americans argue, write, preach, campaign and vote. They don’t blacklist,’ Thomas Spence wrote”, Brian Flood, 1/19/21. https://www.foxnews.com/media/book-publisher-trump-blacklist-josh-hawley-book.
“Readiness to silence someone because of who he is or whom he associates with is often called the ‘cancel culture,’ but I prefer an older term – blacklisting – whose historical associations expose the ugliness of what is going on,” Thomas Spence wrote. “Not so long ago, publishing professionals would have been horrified to be accused of it. Today they compete to see who can proclaim his blacklist with the fiercest invective.” Regnery Publishing president Thomas Spence says “blacklisting” conservative authors is all the rage in the publishing industry – but he won’t let the un-American trend impact his company. Simon & Schuster decided not to publish an upcoming book from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., following the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. As a result, Spence penned an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal headlined “Blacklists Are the Rage in Publishing,” which explains why his company will bring out Hawley’s new book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech.”
Junior High School “Hall Monitors”
“Glenn Greenwald slams ‘junior high hall-monitor tattling’ reporters at CNN, NBC and New York Times: ‘They clearly get aroused — find otherwise-elusive purpose — by destroying people’s reputations and lives,’ he wrote”, Brian Flood, 2/8/21. https://www.foxnews.com/media/greenwald-hall-monitor-tattling-reporters-cnn-nbc-new-york-times.
“Greenwald explained that some journalists appear to exist solely to silence others. “I’ve written before about one particularly toxic strain of this authoritarian ‘reporting.’ Teams of journalists at three of the most influential corporate media outlets — CNN’s ‘media reporters’ (Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy), NBC’s “disinformation space unit” (Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny), and the tech reporters of The New York Times (Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel) — devote the bulk of their ‘journalism’ to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention),” Greenwald wrote. “These hall-monitor reporters are a major factor explaining why tech monopolies, which (for reasons of self-interest and ideology) never wanted the responsibility to censor, now do so with abandon and seemingly arbitrary blunt force: they are shamed by the world’s loudest media companies when they do not,” he continued. … As a result, Greenwald feels America is in a bizarre situation where “journalists are not the defenders of free speech values but the primary crusaders to destroy them.”
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept.
“Greenwald left The Intercept, citing widespread “repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity” from liberal editors who support Joe Biden as an important reason he resigned from the media outlet he co-founded. … He called the [new] iteration of The Intercept “completely unrecognizable when compared to that original vision” because it no longer offers a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives.” [Greenwald then added in a Tweet]. “The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.”
House Democrats Attempt to Cancel More Conservative Newsrooms. “FCC Commissioners Denounce House Democrats Attempt to Censor Newsrooms Based on Politics”, Janita Kan, 2/23/21.
“Two top officials from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Monday said an attempt by House Democrats to pressure television carriers to de-platform Fox News and two other cable news channels was “troubling” because it seeks to “stifle political speech and independent news judgment.” … “This is a chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys,” he said. … “More speech is better than less. … A newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official, not targeted by them.”
Suzanne Moore, The Guardian. She publicly exited the UK’s premier news organization based on newsroom tensions.
“She joins Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept, Bari Weiss from The New York Times, Andrew Sullivan from New York magazine, Stan Wischnowski from the Philadelphia Inquirer, and Matthew Yglesias from Vox. Moore argues powerfully and accurately that “the so-called mainstream media has turned into leftist propaganda rags. They do not deserve constitutional protection in the US. They ignore the crimes of the left and demand persecution for alleged crimes of Republicans and conservatives. These are nothing but cowards.”
Mathew Iglesias, VOX. “As a relative moderate at VOX, Mathew Iglesias says that he felt at times that it was important to challenge what he called the “dominant sensibility” in the “young-college-graduate bubble” that now sets the tone at many digital-media organizations.
“Yglesias … was one of 150 signatories including other liberal writers, professors, and activists who came together to defend civil debate in hopes of ending the ongoing efforts by the viral mob to silence dissenters. … [Vox contributor Emily] VanDerWeff told the editors that Yglesias’ signature on the letter “makes me feel less safe at Vox“ and claimed that it makes her job “slightly more difficult.”
Lee Fang, The Intercept. “Fang was attacked by Akela Lacy, a co-worker at The Intercept.
“The reason was that he raised the issue of Black-on-Black crime during the Summer 2020 worship of BLM Inc. Of course, the only allowable focus for a Woke journalist was police brutality and systemic White racism. Fang found himself denounced online as a racist, then hauled before Human Resources. His crime? During the violent but “mostly peaceful” protests, he tweeted an interview with an African-American man named Maximum Fr. MF described having two cousins murdered in the East Oakland neighborhood where he grew up. Saying his aunt is still not over those killings, [Maximum Fr] asked: “I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it’s going to be national news, but if a Black man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of… It’s stuff just like that that I just want in the mix.”
Shelby Steele, Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University. “Amazon Suppresses Terrific New Shelby Steele Documentary on Race”, Roger L. Simon, 10/14/20.
“The documentary … is exceptionally well-made, powerful, moving, sometimes searing, and, in its inevitable conclusion, ineffably sad. …. [T]his film isn’t just the umpteenth retelling of how so many people, led by the media and exploitative political leaders of the Sharpton ilk, began to believe the supposedly cop-as-racist-murderer lie of “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” in the Ferguson/Michael Brown affair. It’s far more than that. It places this tragedy in the context of a retelling of the history of the civil rights movement from the positive and productive days of Martin Luther King Jr. through the era of Black Power and the Panthers that the young Shelby himself participated in, to the violent, self-destructive desecrations of Black Lives Matter we are living through today.”
Andy Ngo—Independent Journalist and Author: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/powells-books-says-andy-ngos-book-will-not-be-in-store/.
“Powell’s Books says Andy Ngo’s book will not be in store. 1/12/21. “Powell’s Books has announced that the iconic Portland bookstore will not place the book “Unmasked” by conservative writer Andy Ngo on its shelves following a backlash. KOIN reported that despite Powell’s decision to keep the anti-antifa book off its shelves, a small crowd of protesters gathered outside the store’s flagship location downtown on Monday, plastering the windows with signs and prompting the store to close early as a safety precaution. …
“This book will not be placed on our shelves. We will not promote it. That said, it will remain in our online catalog,” the statement said. “We carry a lot of books we find abhorrent, as well as those that we treasure.” The book “Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy” is scheduled for release in February. Author Andy Ngo is known for aggressively covering and video-recording demonstrators. … Ngo has drawn attention to antifa for years. Antifa — short for “anti-fascists”— is an umbrella term for leftist militant groups that confront or resist [what they consider] neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.”
Ryan Anderson, Author of When Harry Became Sally. https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-says-amazon-used-lie-to-justify-censoring-his-book_3731371.html. “Author Says Amazon Used Lie to Justify Censoring His Book”, Petr Svab, 3/12/21.
“The author of a book that criticizes transgender ideology, has said Amazon banned the book from its inventory based on a false argument. Amazon quietly removed the book, titled “When Harry Became Sally,” last month without explanation. When probed for the reason by several Republican senators, the online retail giant said it has chosen to not sell books “that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” in a March 11 letter to the lawmakers obtained by The Wall Street Journal (pdf).
But the book does no such thing, author Ryan Anderson [said]. “Nowhere have I ever said or framed LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” he said via email. “The phrase ‘mental illness’ does occur in the book twice—but not in my own voice: once quoting a ‘transwoman’ writing in The New York Times, and once quoting the current university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins.” Anderson makes a distinction between transgenderism, which he describes as a belief system that’s in major part political, and gender dysphoria, an established mental condition of extreme and persevering discomfort with one’s biological sex.”
Yamiche Alcindor, “PBS NewsHour” correspondent, “was heavily criticized over a tweet describing GOP House candidate Madison Cawthorn standing at the conclusion of his Republican National Convention remarks as a “direct rebuke” to those protesting social injustice.
“Cawthorn, who was partially paralyzed in a 2014 car accident and uses a wheelchair, closed his speech by urging Americans not to “cower to a mob,” and to “kneel before God but stand for our flag. “Be a radical for liberty and be a radical for our republic for which I stand, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all,” Cawthorn said as he rose from his wheelchair and stood behind a walker. One critical response was that: “”The activist [Alcindor] … found a way to turn a paraplegic standing up in his wheelchair an act of white supremacy.””
“CNN panel shuts down guest asking how Bill Clinton hasn’t been ‘canceled’: ‘We believe in redemption, brother,’ Van Jones tells Scott Jennings”, Joseph A. Wulfsohn, 8/18/20.
“A CNN panel was quick to defend former President Bill Clinton Tuesday night after a Republican commentator asked how he had not been “canceled” in the #MeToo era. Ahead of Clinton’s appearance on the second night of the Democratic National Convention, the former president was showered with praise by CNN commentators Van Jones and Jennifer Granholm. However, their colleague Scott Jennings, was puzzled that the Democrats continue to give Clinton a platform. [He asked]. “I have to say ... I am dumbfounded by this. How is it that Bill Clinton has not been canceled by the Democratic -- how has he survived all of these waves of cancellations when he has been one of the biggest violators of these rules all these years?” Jennings asked. “We believe in redemption, brother,” Jones responded.” It is common knowledge, however, that the Left’s “redemption” only applies to the most useful among its own ranks.
“A Riot by any Other Name Is Still a Riot”—“NPR worries that declaring violent Portland protests to be riots could be racist: Taxpayer-funded outlet aired report saying riot declaration laws rooted ‘in the state’s racist history’”, Sam Dorman, 8/28/20.
“NPR has joined with the rest of the major media telling Americans that riots are not riots. Except now, Levinson claims even calling a riot by its true name is racist. He acknowledges the violence of protesters and then disputes calling what they do a riot,” he said. The report indicates that: “Portland Police Bureau Deputy Chief Chris Davis defined riots [as]: “A riot is when six or more people engage in tumultuous and violent conduct, and thereby intentionally or recklessly create a grave risk of causing public alarm, excluding people who are engaged in passive resistance.”
“CNN’s Cillizza criticized over tweet calling out Trump’s use of the word ‘riots’”, Edmund DeMarche, 8/31/20.
“CNN criticized President Trump for describing what has been going on in US cities as “riots” even though an entire summer of burning cities with 2,000 police injured by “peaceful” protesters, CHOP fiefdoms, robberies, looting, murders and deaths—along with an estimated $2 billion in damages resulted. Even CNN subsequently announced that maybe it hadn’t been a brilliant move to make that anti-Trump, no riots, statement with its reporter standing in front of a large and intense fiery blaze set by the “mostly peaceful” protesters.”
“Nicholas Sandmann and a group of his Covington classmates were vilified on social media and by the Washington Post and CNN after they were filmed wearing “Make America Great Again” hats after an anti-abortion rally while being yelled at by demonstrators.
“Sandmann, then 16, was singled out after footage of his confrontation with Native American activist Nathan Phillips was picked up by CNN and other outlets who claimed the incident was racially motivated. Footage released later showed it was the Covington students who were being harassed.” At least CNN ended up paying a significant amount of damages to those it wrongly defamed.
“Tim Scott fires back at liberal media critics over ‘woke supremacy’ remark: Left has ‘intolerance’ for dissent: MSNBC’s Joy Reid recently called Scott a token”, David Rutz, 3/24/21, https://www.foxnews.com/media/tim-scott-fires-back-critics-woke-supremacy.
“Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., fired back at left-wing media figures angered by his recent “woke supremacy“ remarks in a Washington Post op-ed on Wednesday, arguing that ignoring both “woke” and White supremacists endangered the country’s future. “My comments were a sound-bite-length reaction to yet another media figure accusing me of being a token for Republicans,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard that type of slur. I spoke out because I am gravely concerned for our future if we ignore either type of supremacy — both of which are rooted in racism or discrimination.” …
“Liberal Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart called him [Scott] a “fool” and complicit in silencing voices calling for racial justice, while fellow liberal Post columnist Colbert King wrote Scott was “living proof that neither racial nor gender diversity is a guarantor of progressive, inclusive and broad-minded thinking.”
Another liberal columnist, Leonard Pitts, said Scott’s remark was “profoundly stupid”. “In other words, my ideology does not match that which they prescribe based on my complexion,” Scott wrote, summing up their arguments. “That is woke supremacy. It is the ‘tolerant’ left’s intolerance for dissent. It is a progressive conception of diversity that does not include diversity of thought. It is discrimination falsely marketed as inclusion.” … Scott said woke supremacy was “speeding our country toward ideological and literal segregation,” spotlighting Columbia University’s segregated graduation ceremonies.””
Ford Fischer, a Video Journalist in Washington D.C.
“Fischer documents political events, particularly protests and rallies; shares them on his various platforms and frequently licenses his footage to major news outlets. In fact, BBC licensed the video in question for a docuseries. Fischer found himself amid a sea of Trump supporters on Jan. 6 at the National Mall, capturing their reaction to a giant screen that displayed then-President Donald Trump‘s fiery speech ahead of the Capitol Hill riot.
“Fischer shared the raw footage on his platforms. Like the vast majority of his videos, the footage was not edited and provided no commentary. … On Jan. 24, the day before the House of Representatives delivered its article of impeachment against Trump to the Senate, YouTube removed the video for allegedly “violating” its “Terms of Service.” [They stated] “We wanted to let you know our team reviewed your content, and we think it violates our spam, deceptive practices, and scam policy,” YouTube wrote in an email to News2Share.
The email, which Fischer published on Twitter the next day, then cited a policy stating: “Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election is not allowed on YouTube.” After Fischer drew attention to YouTube’s actions, the Google-owned video giant doubled down. “This video was removed bc [because] it didn’t include countervailing views or sufficient context of the claims made in the footage,” TeamYouTube responded to Fischer.” In what appears to be an act of incredible petulance, YouTube then completely demonetized Fischer’s operation.
Brandon Straka, who founded #Walkaway Campaign Group.
“He had his conservative blog de-platformed without notice or explanation. This is an experience shared by many other conservative sites. It is nearly impossible to obtain any specifics from the platforms. Their sole response appears to be: “You violated [fill in the blanks] our policy on a completely vague and non-specific subjective policy that we opted to apply specifically to you. “All of my employees have been banned,” Straka said.
“All of my volunteers have been banned. Anyone connected with my organization was banned.” Straka [said] that Facebook had removed the group’s page consisting of half a million members and also banned the individual accounts of his team, as well as his own personal account. “Today my team and I all at the same time got messages notifying us that our accounts were banned and the Walkaway campaign group has been taken down as well—which had 508,000 people in it,” Straka [stated].”
Larry Elder, host of The Larry Elder Show.
Even though it was clearly among the most highly ranked offerings, Larry Elder had his video documentary “Uncle Tom: An Oral History of the American Black Conservative”, completely ignored by Hollywood media. “Even though it had received the highest ratings in its category, it didn’t fit their narrative of total Black victimhood. The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass, a political writer, wrote a piece headlined “What Frightens the American Left: Larry Elder’s New Documentary ‘Uncle Tom.’”
“Kass writes: “Is there anything more frightening to the American political left and their high media priests of the woke world than Black Americans who think for themselves and refuse to kneel? … And so, they are demeaned by Democratic politicians and either ignored outright or marginalized as race traitors, sellouts and ‘Uncle Toms.’ It’s a way to humiliate them, shut them up, and cancel them.”
Andrew Sullivan, New York Magazine. Sullivan writes:
“A critical mass of the staff and management at New York Magazine and Vox Media no longer want to associate with me. … “They seem to believe, and this is increasingly the orthodoxy in mainstream media, that any writer not actively committed to critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space. Actually attacking, and even mocking, critical theory’s ideas and methods, as I have done continually in this space, is therefore out of sync with the values of Vox Media. That, to the best of my understanding, is why I’m out of here.”
Paul Sperry. https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-suspends-journalist-paul-sperry-they-can-silence-anybody_3701910.html. “Twitter Suspends Journalist Paul Sperry: ‘They Can Silence Anybody’”, Jack Phillips, 2/18/21.
“Twitter suspended journalist Paul Sperry on Wednesday, he confirmed to news outlets. Sperry, who had tens of thousands of followers, told The Gateway Pundit that “there were no warnings” from Twitter before it suspended his account. “No rules were broken They just don’t like my content because of their politics. They’re trying to claim I’m a ‘robot’ when of course they know better. Tyrants.
This is the second time I’ve been harassed since Trump was banned,” Sperry said. “They are trying to push me off their platform and silence my voice through harassment. If they can harass and silence a professional journalist, they can silence anybody,” he warned. … In a leaked video in January, Twitter CEO John [“The Baptist”] Dorsey suggested that more bans will be handed down following Trump’s suspension. “This is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and it’s going to go on beyond the inauguration,” Dorsey said last month. “And we have to expect that and we have to be ready for that.””