Should I link NYT?

What did the National Catholic Register, KHOU-TV and City Journal share in common Saturday? All three were cited as news sources in my weekly wrap-up of the news.

CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post shared in common being excluded because I have more and better news sources. When I began in 2008, as a blogger, my venture into news wrap-ups with the Daily Scorecard, those three outlets were go to places for news. No more.

It is not as if I am going to the echo chambers of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for news. I linked content by ABC, AP and the Hollywood Reporter — and readers know how much I dislike the Hamas-supporting AP. I even cited press releases from the Biden administration.

My rule is the media supplies the facts, I supply the opinion. It is a matter of trust not ideology. Let me give an example of the media’s trust problem.

On Friday, NYT splashed onto its pages an exclusive story, “Judge in Trump Documents Case Rejected Suggestions to Step Aside.

“Two federal judges in South Florida privately urged Aileen M. Cannon to decline the case when it was assigned to her last year, according to two people briefed on the matter. She chose to keep it.”

Well, that sure seems like news that I should comment on, but the paper cited no sources by name.

It claimed the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, where Cannon works, Cecilia M. Altonaga, advised her to drop the case due to inexperience. Given that the FBI never raided a president’s home and confiscated 100,000 items before, no one has any experience handling such a case.

Still, I was tempted to include the story in my highlights, until I got to Paragraph 12:

“But ultimately, Judge Cannon is not subject to the authority of her district court elders. Like any Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed judge, she has a life tenure and independent standing and is free to choose to ignore any such advice.”

My BS detector said punt. I did. Considering neither Cannon nor Altonaga would talk to NYT, it was a good thing I did. If someone else has a more reliable story verified by on-the-record sources, I may look at the case again.

Newspapers have become a misnomer. They don’t have news and they are mainly digital not paper.

The Washington Post is the Old Maid Card of journalism with the staff running off new management just like the staff ran off half its readers. The staff are the kids no one wants to babysit.

Ira Stoll speculates that Jeff Bezos will unload it on Bill Gates or some other status-seeking billionaire. Just remember, Stoll talked to no one about this. His piece is the same voices-in-my-head journalism that NYT used to attack Judge Cannon. I didn’t comment on his speculation any more than I would weigh in on who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse.

The question is should you link NYT? Is it ethical to grant any legitimacy to a proven and constant source of misinformation? Should I lend credibility to an organization that promoted the Russian Hoax — the idea that Putin stole the 2016 election from Hillary — and has never apologized or returned its Pulitzers?

Well, I do. Not directly. Usually a third party can be found that carries NYT’s material. I make no claim to purity or virtue. Most if not all the sources I cite are biased. The National Catholic Registry promotes Catholicism, does it not? But an ordained priest becoming a law clerk for Justice Brett Kavanaugh is news that oddly enough that the leftwing media ignored.

By the way, maybe the priest could set up a confessional booth at the court. (Father forgive me, for I have violated the Constitution.)

I no longer have to rely on facts filtered by lefties. You don’t either. We don’t have to because the Internet freed us from the chains of the news oligarchs.

Elon Musk at Twitter became my top source of news because just about anyone can use it to publicize just about anything. It also is a source of nuisance as well as news because — get this — people also use it to publicize fake news. But I can decide which is right and which is an illusion.

Musk rescued free speech by ending government censorship of Twitter.

This of course bothers the Establishment. Australia tried to fine Musk for not censoring Twitter. That failed. Brazil and EU also have tried to coerce Twitter into censoring the rabble-rousers who dare disrespect their authority. And of course, Biden is using the federal government to go after Musk and his various companies.

Meanwhile, the media tries to defame him.

The Hill ran a piece by Zachary Ellwood, “Elon Musk is making political debate more toxic — here’s how to change course.”

Yes, he called Trump supporters deplorable. (Fact check: That was Hillary.)

He imprisoned Trump supporters who trespassed at the Capitol. (Fact check: That was Nancy.)

He called Trump supporters a grave threat to democracy. (Fact check: That was Biden.)

Ellwood mentioned none of this. Instead he attacked Musk, calling him toxic.

Elon Musk often treats his political opponents with contempt. He uses the social media site he owns to call people morons and idiots, say they have a “mind virus,” and claim to know with certainty other people’s malicious intent. He treats people with contempt even outside political contexts (see the “pedo guy” thing.)

Musk’s contemptuous behavior amplifies the toxicity of our divides. Not only that, it’s self-defeating, as it strengthens and inflames his more extreme and passionate adversaries (just as his opponents’ contempt grants him more power).

Criticisms of Musk (and others like him) are often incorrectly reduced to criticisms of their beliefs. But this criticism of Musk isn’t about his beliefs, but rather about how he handles disagreement and conflict. It’s not about the polarization of his beliefs, but about his affective polarization — his disdain for the “other side.”

Why is Ellwood lying? Of course his toxic attack on Musk is about politics. If it weren’t, Ellwood would have cited specific examples of leftwing political toxins. The only lefty he mentioned by name was Keith Olbermann, who left MSNBC 12 years ago.

Musk may say things Ellwood dislikes, but guess what? Musk allows people he disagrees with politically to post. He puts up with critics but draws the line at personal attacks and attacks on his minor children.

Old mainstream media outlets are dying because their audiences and readership are falling. Oh well. Most buggy whip companies went south after the automobile became popular.

I keep reading about news deserts but I don’t see any evidence. Those news deserts are a mirage promoted by journalism schools, who are in the business of separating suckers from their money by training them for jobs that no longer exist.

The J-school at Northwestern said, “The loss of local newspapers accelerated in 2023 to an average of 2.5 per week, leaving more than 200 counties as news deserts and meaning that more than half of all U.S. counties now have limited access to reliable local news and information, researchers at the Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications at Northwestern University have found.”

We have three TV news operations in the Greater Poca Area — which includes Huntington and the state capital of West Virginia. We don’t need a local paper.

Northwestern’s own numbers show news sites are growing thanks to the Internet. It calls the new sites phony because they promote political ideologies.

NEWS FLASH: Newspapers have editorial pages. You had better believe the news pages promote it because when was the last time a pro pro-life story ran in NYT?

Nevertheless, AFP reported:

At least 1,265 "pink slime" outlets — politically motivated websites that present themselves as independent local news outlets — have been identified, the U.S.-based research group NewsGuard said in a report.

By comparison, 1,213 websites of local newspapers were operating in the United States last year, according to Northwestern University's "local news initiative" project.

"The odds are now better than 50-50 that if you see a news website purporting to cover local news, it’s fake," the NewsGuard report said.

Calling your competition pink slime is toxic. Will someone please alert Mister Ellwood?

Who needs newspapers? When was the last time a big city paper crusaded for the election of a Republican mayor? Oh, they will rally for a First (Fill-in-the-blank) Mayor. But while the garbage piles up and homeless drug zombies take over the streets, those newspapers refuse to hold City Hall accountable and demand change.

Well, swine like to wallow in their own filth.

Given the pro-school board reporting by newspapers, there is a need for someone who challenges their decisions. In most communities, the school board is the largest employer. In most newspaper towns, the school board is covered by a future communications director for the school board.

We should welcome the pink slime guys to hold the feet of the school board members to the fire because they control a very powerful organization that spends a lot on local contractors and the book industry. Where does the money go?

They say, Lincoln made men free; Sam Colt made them equal. I say Elon Musk gave men a megaphone.