The New York Times Pounds Away with Ideological Racism and Race-Baiting as Usual.

Political Ideas are frequently derived by a narrow redaction of isolated historical events and then intercalating the extract with some current observation or fanciful wish. Using this ‘synthesis’ theorem, the basis of Marxism, any necessary prediction may be hastily hatched and justified by merely citing the numerous examples. Once the synthesis creates a workable political mechanism, the temptation is to pound away on the political levers and like a hurdy-gurdy plaster the tune on every street, hallway and piece of printed matter they can find.  Today we are treated to such a pedestrian-level tactic from the New York Times--aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1] --where, in this case, ideological racism drives the clarion calls to get out the vote.  This is a classic piece or race-baiting or reverse race-baiting if you prefer. The Times excels with this technique. Racism works in politics and the NYT is the greatest proponent and executor of this policy in the Western Hemisphere.

Background:

Now, the Times is far left, racially based, biased and sifts the news and references to make their political point without regard for objectivity as the many editorial articles they print clearly show. We need only read a few by Frank Rich[2], Paul Krugman[3], Thomas Friedman[4] and Maureen Dowd[5] or Bob Herbert[6] to verify this notion. But, the executive editor [oxymoron?] professes full and fair coverage of the candidates:

"The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It's our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it's what our readers expect and deserve."[7]-- NY Times executive editor Bill Keller. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

This is so laughable as to want to save the Times as a comic’s book reference heap instead of the usual manner of using the paper, more properly, to stuff the bottom of flower pots in water gardens. I have used the Times editorial page to effectively line the bottom of my parrot’s cage with the face of a leftist on the Supreme Court, but both died. I cancelled my subscription but  read the online version to monitor what they are doing. But, by their maintenance of this false notion, we can exhibit this ‘journalism’ and the comments  by some ‘editorial observer,’ whatever that might be, to prove my point. We might wonder if Keller ever proofed this fluff below:

“It was not that long ago that black people in the Deep South could be beaten or killed for seeking the right to vote, talking back to the wrong white man or failing to give way on the sidewalk.”[8]-- Barack Obama, John McCain and the Language of Race

By Brent Staples [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

This is a fact, but is not germane to the present race unless race is injected into the race. This is a hackneyed beginning of the last 15,000 reverse racist essays by the left. It is so stale.

“A blatant example surfaced earlier this month, when a Georgia Republican, Representative Lynn Westmoreland, described the Obamas as “uppity” in response to a reporter’s question.”

This is the proof statement: race is a major factor in this contest.

“In what is probably a harbinger of things to come, the McCain campaign has already run a commercial that carries a similar intimation, accusing Mr. Obama of being “disrespectful” to Sarah Palin. The argument is muted, but its racial antecedents are very clear.”

Race-baiting in action. The rest of this article is so much swill, and can be dismissed. Below we compare the racially charged word “uppity” with comments by Barack Obama and see how the Times played these.  In keeping with Keller’s notions of fair coverage we might inject some comments by Obama that seemed to have escaped denigration by the Times:

“Obama is drawing a new round of criticism for his comments on a Philadelphia radio sports program yesterday in which he said his grandmother is a "typical white person" who has fears about black men. “[9]

I cannot seem to find any condemnation or hint that senator Obama is using racism in this comment. The reverse comment that might be offered by another candidate using the phrase “typical black person” would stoke the fires that the Old Gray Lady and cause a storm.  A lot of ‘gotcha’ polemics would flow like cheap wine in the San Francisco gutters after that one. The Times is two-faced in the matter, because, simply, they must use the race card to maintain their voters and victims squarely as convinced that Republicans are the Party of Race. The opposite is actually true. It is not the Republicans that pushed the racist buttons in this race—it was Obama and Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro[10] and the wonderful Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his familiars. The left are the only ones who routinely howl about race. That is racism.

Searching the Times archives I could not find coverage of this comment:

 A quote by Kamau Kambon “[blacks must]…exterminate white people off the face of the planet.” [11]

Suppose some minor official in some obscure county office said that he wanted to exterminate black people off the face of the planet.”  This seems to be a blatant example of racism, but perhaps not in the parlance of the New York Times. They are apparently silent on this one until as some Republican says something like this.

Then, there is this famous comment by Obama:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."[12]—Barack Obama off camera in what he thought was a safe environment to express his views.[13]

The Times gets a[n] reporter…er...ah… apologist to wordslime the text:

“Acknowledging Saturday that “I didn’t say it as well as I should have,” he explained his remarks by focusing on his characterization of those voters’ economic woes. He meant, he said, that voters in places that had been losing jobs for years expressed their anxiety at the polls by focusing on cultural and social issues like gun laws and immigration.”[14]-- On the Defensive, Obama Calls His Words Ill-Chosen By Katharine Q. Seelye And Jeff Zeleny

So, he gets help from the Times to spin [read redact] his comments. Sure. We believe that. We now believe we know exactly what he ‘meant.’ We can trust Keller and the Times on this one.

This was a comment off camera and was well received by the small group that heard his words. He uses classic elitism and bigotry and contempt for the stupid, low-class whites who cannot seem to share the vision of the magnificence of higher taxes, high gasoline prices and who, with no excuses, voted for Ronald Reagan. Their ignorance obscures their view of social justice.

The Clinton camp, jumping on this opportunity, responded with this:

“While Mr. Obama cast his remarks as an expression of populist sympathy for a displaced working class, Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates suggested that they went to the heart of his political vulnerability: while his message of hope has energized young and affluent voters, he has yet to dispel concern about whether a young, African-American candidate can persuade white, working class Democrats that he represents their interests.”[15]

“David Saunders, a Democratic strategist and rural advocate, advised John Edwards’s presidential campaign but is now neutral. He said he believed that Mr. Obama’s comments would offend rural voters.

“It could mean he’s rendered himself unelectable,” Mr. Saunders said. “This is a perfect example of why Democrats lose elections.”[16]

It seems that the NYT mumbled about this comment, but seemed to lack the objectivity and ‘fairness’ and demonstrate their commitment to “covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively.”

The reason is clear: if the Kellerbots at the Times criticize Obama then they will violate their trust with the true believers of Marxism and other sordid variants of left-liberalism and provide some great evidence for the opposition to show that Obama is a bigot and elitist even in the eyes of the Times. They cannot do that! The truth might work against them! They  must spin anything he says.

So, the Walter Duranty Papers slow-plays this obvious piece of sleaze and bigotry and attempts to let it rest or rot away.

The staff of the Times is infected with the disease know as cryptomisoxeny. [17] They celebrate the routine practice of the use of overt racism, sleaze, inuendo and worse as they stroke the sticky levers of racism while assuming that they are wonderful, engaged in a noble crusade, and are ferreting out racists and exposing them to an adoring public. There is too much evidence here to refute this and the evidence also shows that the Times is a cononical emsemble of left-wing zealots who will print anything that might get one of their favorites elected. They have little else.

The New York Times stodgily maintains its leftist image as the Gatekeep of Stooges of the left.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com