Tuesday, June 11, 2019

NYT only endorses Youtube free speech in Russia

From Two NY Times stories:
He is scarred by his experience of being radicalized by what he calls a “decentralized cult” of far-right YouTube personalities, who convinced him that Western civilization was under threat from Muslim immigrants and cultural Marxists, that innate I.Q. differences explained racial disparities, and that feminism was a dangerous ideology. ...

“The entire social, political part of television is controlled by the authorities,” said Leonid G. Parfenov, an independent news anchor who has been shut out of state TV since 2004 for being too critical of the government. “For that reason, you cannot consider this television journalism — it is just propaganda, they are just employees of the presidential administration.”

Yet voices that the government would mute are heard regularly by tens of millions of Russians in another format: YouTube.
It is funny how the NY Times is in favor of Youtube free speech in Russia, but not in America.

This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that the lizard people at the NY Times are not really for free speech. They simply want a controlled message, with their own lizard people at the controls. They control the American media to their satisfaction, but not the Russia media.

If the issue is publishing Donald Trump's tax returns, then the NY Times is all in favor of publishing. But if someone is saying that feminism is a dangerous ideology or that Jews control the media, then the message must be censored.

A NY Times op-ed lays out what is supposed to be the strongest case for impeachment:
4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report - Some troubling-to-outright-damning episodes have been lost in the noise around its release.

[1] Rick Gates, a top adviser, said that the campaign was “planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release” of Hillary Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. ... Mr. Mueller has alleged that Mr. Stone, a Trump affiliate, sought [unsuccessfully] to obtain information about WikiLeaks’ planned release of anti-Clinton material and pass that information to the campaign. ...

[2] At a July 27, 2016, campaign rally, Mr. Trump said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — referring to Clinton emails reportedly stored on a personal server. ... Mr. Flynn, in turn, reached out to a Republican Senate staffer and a party operative who worked separately [unsuccessfully] to obtain the emails. ...

[3] Mr. Gates likewise told the special counsel that Mr. Manafort believed sharing the polling data with Mr. Kilimnik, who passed it to a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, would help resolve a financial dispute between Mr. Manafort and the Russian oligarch. The report also states that Mr. Manafort hoped his campaign work would help him recover money he was owed by the other oligarchs. Yet Mr. Mueller “could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose” in sharing the data with Mr. Kilimnik. ...

[4] Simply firing Mr. Mueller would have been within the president’s power. Asking a private citizen to [unsuccessfully] deliver that message, however, moves this outside the realm of the president’s management of the executive branch and toward clearer-cut obstruction of justice.
None of this is illegal or improper.

The argument seems to be that Trump and some associates attempted to do some things that would have been completely legal if they had succeeded, but because they did not succeed, we cannot be completely certain of their motives, so that makes it improper in a way that no one can explain.

No comments: