dailysignal--2020-06-03--Stop Using the Boston Tea Party to Justify Violence in Modern America

Lawful protest in the American political process isn ’ t the same as the lawless rioting , looting , and destruction of lives and property that became a threat to the public in the past week .
The death of a black man , George Floyd , at the hands of a white police officer May 25 in Minneapolis sparked widespread protests there and across America .
Many of the demonstrations , despite the general lockdown and stay-at-home orders still in place during the coronavirus pandemic , have been peaceful .
However , in many cities , vandals and looters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ransacking minority-owned businesses among many others .
Several people have been killed amid the violence .
Defacing a monument to the 54th Massachusetts , a regiment of all-volunteer black soldiers during the Civil War , hardly seems like an appropriate or reasonable protest of Floyd ’ s killing , or racism in America , or really anything else .
These shameful and destructive actions have been denounced by many—including Floyd ’ s family–and are a direct assault on the rule of law .
Unfortunately , some have taken to justifying the violence we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been making a direct comparison to the Boston Tea Party and other acts of rebellion in the American colonies leading up to the Revolutionary War .
“ The destruction of a police precinct is not only a tactically reasonable response to the crisis of policing , it is a quintessentially American response , and a predictable one , ” journalism professor Steven W. Thrasher at Northwest University wrote in Slate : “ The uprising we ’ ve seen this week is speaking to the American police state in its own language , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fireworks to mark a battle victory .
Property destruction for social change is as American as the Boston Tea Party.
” The insinuation is that the destruction of the 3rd Precinct police station in Minneapolis , or looting and arson , is somehow in line with venerable American traditions and can lead to positive change within the American system of free government .
In the early 1770s , discontent was brewing in Boston and other parts of the British colonies in America in response to a series of acts passed in Parliament putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the economy of the colonies .
The taxes were obnoxious enough , but what was truly intolerable to the American colonists was that they had no say in the laws , no avenue to have representation in the British Empire ’ s governing body .
The Tea Act of 1773 , which led to the Boston Tea Party , actually was , in part , a lowering of a previous tax .
This too was unacceptable .
Yes , the taxes were bad enough , but the rate of taxation was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , it was the colonists ’ belief that they were living under an arbitrary and increasingly authoritarian government , that their pleas for change would be effectively ignored .
The American colonies , with a long history of self-rule and belief that they were British subjects just as much as those living in London , saw the actions of the British government as looming tyranny .
Instead of finding ways to accommodate the colonists ’ fears , as some wiser statesmen such as Edmund Burke were imploring Parliament and King George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British government tightened the screws .
Boston stewed with discontent in the winter of 1773 .
Colonists refused to let ships that brought tea owned by the East India Company–essentially a monopoly backed by England–to be unloaded for sale in the city .
It ’ s important to note too that colonists had negotiated for weeks simply to have the ships filled with tea sent back to England rather than force a confrontation .
British law mandated that duties on goods aboard ships be paid within 20 days , or authorities would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The owner of one of the tea-carrying ships , Francis Rotch , pleaded with the crown-appointed Massachusetts governor to allow him to sail back to England , but the governor repeatedly denied his request .
When Rotch returned to Boston on the evening of Dec. 26 , 1773 , and delivered the bad news to Boston ’ s Committee of Correspondence that his request had been rejected , the die was cast .
A group of townspeople associated with a patriot group called the Sons of Liberty , many dressed as Mohawk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rakove recounted what happened next in his book , “ Revolutionaries : Inventing an American Nation ” : The Sons of Liberty carefully targeted their protest .
They opposed an arbitrary and obnoxious tax , not a ship owner , and certainly didn ’ t intend to harm Bostonians .
They conducted themselves in as orderly a fashion as possible .
In fact , Samuel Adams , one of the leaders of the Sons of Liberty , insisted that the protest occurred “ without the least Injury to the Vessels or any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a padlock to get to the tea inside , but replaced it the next day .
They certainly didn ’ t take that moment to rob their local businesses or burn buildings to the ground .
Not everyone was convinced .
Notably , George Washington and Benjamin Franklin weren ’ t pleased with the property destruction , however justified , and disapproved when riots previously erupted in response to Parliament ’ s “ Intolerable Acts , ” as they were called .
Franklin and Washington , like numerous other American colonists at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was possible despite their opposition to the British government ’ s actions in general .
Columnist Dan McLaughlin , writing in 2014 for The Federalist , was correct in saying the reason Americans so fondly remember the Boston Tea Party and other incidents of rebellion in the American colonies is “ not because rioting was morally justified or successful in bringing about its aims , but because we see the ultimate result that those outbursts led to the American Revolution.
” The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion from a colony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which the Declaration of Independence later explicitly cited as the reason for the colonies to separate from England .
The Constitution and the governing system created by the founding generation following the Revolution was designed to ensure that American citizens did not have to suffer arbitrary government .
We , unlike the colonists of the 1770s , would have the chance to petition authorities , conduct elections , and seek representation in government .
It ’ s worth noting that when groups of Americans organized militias to oppose taxes in the 1790s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania , President Washington personally led a military force to crush it .
Violent resistance to duly passed laws , whether good or not , would be met with force .
Laws may not change and–as the world is not perfect–injustices will still occur under our system , but we have the tools to appeal to ballots over bullets that the colonists didn ’ t .
This is the cornerstone of liberty and self-government .
Associating the violent destruction of a police station and wanton looting of businesses this past week with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history .
It makes a mockery of our constitutional , free government .

Lawful protest in the American political process isn’t the same as the lawless rioting, looting, and destruction of lives and property that became a threat to the public in the past week.
The death of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer May 25 in Minneapolis sparked widespread protests there and across America. Many of the demonstrations, despite the general lockdown and stay-at-home orders still in place during the coronavirus pandemic, have been peaceful.
However, in many cities, vandals and looters are destroying public and private property and ransacking minority-owned businesses among many others. Several people have been killed amid the violence.
Defacing a monument to the 54th Massachusetts, a regiment of all-volunteer black soldiers during the Civil War, hardly seems like an appropriate or reasonable protest of Floyd’s killing, or racism in America, or really anything else.
These shameful and destructive actions have been denounced by many—including Floyd’s family—and are a direct assault on the rule of law.
Unfortunately, some have taken to justifying the violence we’ve seen in recent days and have been making a direct comparison to the Boston Tea Party and other acts of rebellion in the American colonies leading up to the Revolutionary War.
“The destruction of a police precinct is not only a tactically reasonable response to the crisis of policing, it is a quintessentially American response, and a predictable one,” journalism professor Steven W. Thrasher at Northwestern University wrote in Slate, adding:
The uprising we’ve seen this week is speaking to the American police state in its own language, up to and including the use of fireworks to mark a battle victory. Property destruction for social change is as American as the Boston Tea Party.
The insinuation is that the destruction of the 3rd Precinct police station in Minneapolis, or looting and arson, is somehow in line with venerable American traditions and can lead to positive change within the American system of free government.
This is nonsense.
Intolerable Acts
In the early 1770s, discontent was brewing in Boston and other parts of the British colonies in America in response to a series of acts passed in Parliament putting duties and taxes on various goods vital to the economy of the colonies.
The taxes were obnoxious enough, but what was truly intolerable to the American colonists was that they had no say in the laws, no avenue to have representation in the British Empire’s governing body.
The Tea Act of 1773, which led to the Boston Tea Party, actually was, in part, a lowering of a previous tax. This too was unacceptable. Yes, the taxes were bad enough, but the rate of taxation was not, ultimately, the issue at hand.
Instead, it was the colonists’ belief that they were living under an arbitrary and increasingly authoritarian government, that their pleas for change would be effectively ignored.
The American colonies, with a long history of self-rule and belief that they were British subjects just as much as those living in London, saw the actions of the British government as looming tyranny.
Instead of finding ways to accommodate the colonists’ fears, as some wiser statesmen such as Edmund Burke were imploring Parliament and King George III’s ministry to do, the British government tightened the screws.
Confrontation was becoming inevitable.
Boston stewed with discontent in the winter of 1773. Colonists refused to let ships that brought tea owned by the East India Company—essentially a monopoly backed by England—to be unloaded for sale in the city.
It’s important to note too that colonists had negotiated for weeks simply to have the ships filled with tea sent back to England rather than force a confrontation. British law mandated that duties on goods aboard ships be paid within 20 days, or authorities would seize the ships and sell the items.
The owner of one of the tea-carrying ships, Francis Rotch, pleaded with the crown-appointed Massachusetts governor to allow him to sail back to England, but the governor repeatedly denied his request.
When Rotch returned to Boston on the evening of Dec. 26, 1773, and delivered the bad news to Boston’s Committee of Correspondence that his request had been rejected, the die was cast.
The Tea Party
A group of townspeople associated with a patriot group called the Sons of Liberty, many dressed as Mohawk warriors, went into action.
Historian Jack Rakove recounted what happened next in his book, “Revolutionaries: Inventing an American Nation”:
Once the ‘Mohawks,’ numbering fifteen or twenty a vessel, boarded the ships, the crowd watched silently as 340 massive chests of East India Company tea were hauled on desk and whacked open with axes; then the contents were thrown overboard. By 9 P.M. a cargo valued at a hefty nine thousand pounds sterling was weakly brewing in the low-tide waters.
The Sons of Liberty carefully targeted their protest. They opposed an arbitrary and obnoxious tax, not a ship owner, and certainly didn’t intend to harm Bostonians. They conducted themselves in as orderly a fashion as possible.
In fact, Samuel Adams, one of the leaders of the Sons of Liberty, insisted that the protest occurred “without the least Injury to the Vessels or any other property.”
The Sons of Liberty broke a padlock to get to the tea inside, but replaced it the next day. They certainly didn’t take that moment to rob their local businesses or burn buildings to the ground.
Not everyone was convinced. Notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin weren’t pleased with the property destruction, however justified, and disapproved when riots previously erupted in response to Parliament’s “Intolerable Acts,” as they were called.
Franklin and Washington, like numerous other American colonists at the time, hoped that a lawful resolution was possible despite their opposition to the British government’s actions in general.
Columnist Dan McLaughlin, writing in 2014 for The Federalist, was correct in saying the reason Americans so fondly remember the Boston Tea Party and other incidents of rebellion in the American colonies is “not because rioting was morally justified or successful in bringing about its aims, but because we see the ultimate result that those outbursts led to the American Revolution.”
The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion from a colony revolting against the use of arbitrary power, which the Declaration of Independence later explicitly cited as the reason for the colonies to separate from England.
Our System of Free Government
The Constitution and the governing system created by the founding generation following the Revolution was designed to ensure that American citizens did not have to suffer arbitrary government. We, unlike the colonists of the 1770s, would have the chance to petition authorities, conduct elections, and seek representation in government.
It’s worth noting that when groups of Americans organized militias to oppose taxes in the 1790s and threatened to topple local authorities in Pennsylvania, President George Washington personally led a military force to crush it.
Violent resistance to duly passed laws, whether good or not, would be met with force.
Laws may not change and—as the world is not perfect—injustices will still occur under our system, but we have the tools to appeal to ballots over bullets that the colonists didn’t. This is the cornerstone of liberty and self-government.
Associating the violent destruction of a police station and wanton looting of businesses this past week with the Boston Tea Party is an abuse of history. It makes a mockery of our constitutional, free government.


dailysignal--2020-06-03--How the Media Deploy a ‘Distraction’ Framework

I ’ ve been in the news business for over 20 years now , and among the many things I ’ ve learned about how the media complex operates is this : One of the favorite tricks journalists and politicians use to control the focus of viewers and push the media ’ s preferred narrative is to label other stories as “ distractions.
” This is especially true when it comes to President Donald Trump .
In the recent past , most mainstream media outlets have been obsessed with the pandemic , and his leadership during this crisis .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s the biggest news story in a generation , with a large death toll and global implications about governmental control over the economy , international relations , and the very idea of life-sustaining social interactions between human beings .
But it ’ s not the only story .
And this is where the sleight of hand comes in .
Among Democrats and many liberal journalists , it is an article of faith that Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic has been a disaster .
Keeping the focus on Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this framework , anything the president does or says that is not related to the pandemic is labeled a “ distraction.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi played this card yesterday , responding to a question about Trump ’ s proposed crackdown on social media companies .
“ I think it ’ s just typical President Trump , ” said the House speaker .
“ A distraction .
More than 100,000 people have died from the coronavirus .
This administration has been a failure in terms of what we ’ re doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and isolating people .
The president has been a terrible example of not wearing a mask , and belittling those who do .
So anything he does is a distraction from the problem at hand.
” Just a few weeks ago , any discussion of the troubling Justice Department treatment of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was declared a “ distraction ” by a flurry of reporters and media outlets .
CNN has been particularly fond of the “ distraction ” theme in recent weeks , as you can see from the following headlines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Distract You From Focusing On ” “ Trump and Right-Wing Media Distract From Bad Virus News With Alternate Reality ” “ Trump Goes on Wild Tweetstorm to Distract From Fauci Testimony ” Notice that when Trump tweets or comments about a subject or story that the media approves of , such as he did with the George Floyd case Thursday , it ’ s never labeled a distraction .
Only stories on subjects in which the press disagrees with the administration earn the “ distraction ” distinction .
If this feels familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been going on since the day Trump took office .
From the beginning of his presidency , as the Russia collusion stories began peppering the landscape , journalists and Democrats used the technique to make sure audiences stayed focused on what they believed was the most important story in history : the Trump campaign ’ s supposed collusion with Vladimir Putin .
Over the last three years media outlets have dismissed dozens of presidential statements and initiatives as efforts by Trump to distract the public from the Russia collusion story or special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including tweeting about Iran , pulling John Brennan ’ s security clearance , starting a cold war with China , meeting with Kim Jong Un , and even slapping tariffs on Mexico .
The collusion story turned out to be false .
So what exactly was Trump trying to distract you from ?
The answer is he wasn ’ t .
Donald Trump is , by his very nature , an outrageous , impulsive , torrential news-making machine .
He seemingly tweets about every thought that enters his head , from consequential policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schoolyard taunts .
But it ’ s up to you , the citizens and voters , and not the media gatekeepers , to decide what is a “ distraction ” and what isn ’ t .

I’ve been in the news business for over 20 years now, and among the many things I’ve learned about how the media complex operates is this: One of the favorite tricks journalists and politicians use to control the focus of viewers and push the media’s preferred narrative is to label other stories as “distractions.”
This is especially true when it comes to President Donald Trump.
In the recent past, most mainstream media outlets have been obsessed with the pandemic, and his leadership during this crisis. That is certainly understandable. In some ways, it’s the biggest news story in a generation, with a large death toll and global implications about governmental control over the economy, international relations, and the very idea of life-sustaining social interactions between human beings.
But it’s not the only story. And this is where the sleight of hand comes in.
Among Democrats and many liberal journalists, it is an article of faith that Trump’s handling of the pandemic has been a disaster. Keeping the focus on Trump’s failures has become a priority. In this framework, anything the president does or says that is not related to the pandemic is labeled a “distraction.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi played this card yesterday, responding to a question about Trump’s proposed crackdown on social media companies.
“I think it’s just typical President Trump,” said the House speaker. “A distraction. More than 100,000 people have died from the coronavirus. This administration has been a failure in terms of what we’re doing, testing, tracing, treating, and isolating people. The president has been a terrible example of not wearing a mask, and belittling those who do. So anything he does is a distraction from the problem at hand.”
Just a few weeks ago, any discussion of the troubling Justice Department treatment of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was declared a “distraction” by a flurry of reporters and media outlets. CNN has been particularly fond of the “distraction” theme in recent weeks, as you can see from the following headlines:
“10 Things Trump Would Like to Distract You From Focusing On”
“Trump and Right-Wing Media Distract From Bad Virus News With Alternate Reality”
“Trump Goes on Wild Tweetstorm to Distract From Fauci Testimony”
Notice that when Trump tweets or comments about a subject or story that the media approves of, such as he did with the George Floyd case Thursday, it’s never labeled a distraction. Only stories on subjects in which the press disagrees with the administration earn the “distraction” distinction.
If this feels familiar, that’s because it’s been going on since the day Trump took office. From the beginning of his presidency, as the Russia collusion stories began peppering the landscape, journalists and Democrats used the technique to make sure audiences stayed focused on what they believed was the most important story in history: the Trump campaign’s supposed collusion with Vladimir Putin.
Over the last three years media outlets have dismissed dozens of presidential statements and initiatives as efforts by Trump to distract the public from the Russia collusion story or special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation, including tweeting about Iran, pulling John Brennan’s security clearance, starting a cold war with China, meeting with Kim Jong Un, and even slapping tariffs on Mexico.
The collusion story turned out to be false. So what exactly was Trump trying to distract you from? The answer is he wasn’t.
Donald Trump is, by his very nature, an outrageous, impulsive, torrential news-making machine. He seemingly tweets about every thought that enters his head, from consequential policy pronouncements to strange conspiracy theories and petty schoolyard taunts.
But it’s up to you, the citizens and voters, and not the media gatekeepers, to decide what is a “distraction” and what isn’t.
Originally published by RealClearPolitics


dailysignal--2020-06-04--Remembering the Life and Legacy of Sam Johnson

“ Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die that the protected will never know.
” Those words were etched into the wall of the now infamous Hanoi Hilton prisoner of war camp by one of Sam Johnson ’ s fellow prisoners of war .
Now , they are imprinted in a handwritten note from Rep. Sam Johnson behind the dais of the chairman ’ s seat in the U.S. House of Representatives hearing room that bears Johnson ’ s name .
“ I think this statement perfectly captures what it means to be a veteran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died of natural causes May 27 at age 89 in Plano , Texas , had a history of service to his country .
In addition to flying nearly 100 combat missions in Korea and Vietnam , Johnson endured seven years of torture in what he called “ a place so dark and desolate , it could only be referred to as hell on Earth.
” “ Being a veteran means having a firsthand appreciation for the freedoms so many folks take for granted .
We are fortunate to live in a country that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country where our Founding Fathers designed a Constitution and a government that serves the people rather than dictates how people should live their lives , ” Johnson said .
Johnson ’ s passion for defending freedom and individual liberty eventually led him to serve for 27 years in the House , following almost three decades of military service and working as a homebuilder .
He represented the 3rd Congressional District of Texas from 1991 through 2018 .
Some of Johnson ’ s greatest accomplishments in Congress came from his role on the Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Means Committee , where he served his entire tenure and rose to become chairman .
Johnson ’ s proposed Social Security Reform Act of 2016 is the only such measure that would make the program solvent without raising taxes ( in fact , it would slightly lower taxes ) , and it would do so while actually increasing Social Security benefits for low-income earners .
With three children and 10 grandchildren of his own , Johnson was no doubt motivated to preserve Social Security without unduly burdening younger and future generations .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Security ’ s solvency , lower-income workers , and younger and future Americans .
Amy Shuart , who served as staff director of the Social Security subcommittee under Johnson , praised the chairman and highlighted many of his other accomplishments : For years , Chairman Sam Johnson worked to strengthen Social Security so future generations could continue to count on it .
He understood the importance of Social Security to so many Americans , and challenged the Social Security Administration to always improve service to the American people—and held the agency accountable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant improvements to Social Security , including the elimination of the retirement earnings test for certain seniors , removal of Social Security numbers from Medicare cards , and much-needed changes to the representative payee program .
His influence can be seen across a variety of agency efforts—a renewed focus on service delivery , much-needed modernization of information technology , and improved efforts to stop fraud—and will continue for years to come .
In a 2016 interview , Johnson said , “ I hope that any legacy I leave behind is one that emphasizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service , and patriotism.
” Congressman Johnson , you have certainly done that , and America thanks you for your service .

“Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die that the protected will never know.”
Those words were etched into the wall of the now infamous Hanoi Hilton prisoner of war camp by one of Sam Johnson’s fellow prisoners of war.
Now, they are imprinted in a handwritten note from Rep. Sam Johnson behind the dais of the chairman’s seat in the U.S. House of Representatives hearing room that bears Johnson’s name.
“I think this statement perfectly captures what it means to be a veteran,” Johnson said.
Johnson, who died of natural causes May 27 at age 89 in Plano, Texas, had a history of service to his country.
In addition to flying nearly 100 combat missions in Korea and Vietnam, Johnson endured seven years of torture in what he called “a place so dark and desolate, it could only be referred to as hell on Earth.”
“Being a veteran means having a firsthand appreciation for the freedoms so many folks take for granted. We are fortunate to live in a country that defends individual liberty for all … a country where our Founding Fathers designed a Constitution and a government that serves the people rather than dictates how people should live their lives,” Johnson said.
Johnson’s passion for defending freedom and individual liberty eventually led him to serve for 27 years in the House, following almost three decades of military service and working as a homebuilder. He represented the 3rd Congressional District of Texas from 1991 through 2018.
Some of Johnson’s greatest accomplishments in Congress came from his role on the Social Security subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he served his entire tenure and rose to become chairman.
Johnson’s proposed Social Security Reform Act of 2016 is the only such measure that would make the program solvent without raising taxes (in fact, it would slightly lower taxes), and it would do so while actually increasing Social Security benefits for low-income earners.
With three children and 10 grandchildren of his own, Johnson was no doubt motivated to preserve Social Security without unduly burdening younger and future generations.
His proposal remains the benchmark proposal for protecting Social Security’s solvency, lower-income workers, and younger and future Americans.
Amy Shuart, who served as staff director of the Social Security subcommittee under Johnson, praised the chairman and highlighted many of his other accomplishments:
For years, Chairman Sam Johnson worked to strengthen Social Security so future generations could continue to count on it. He understood the importance of Social Security to so many Americans, and challenged the Social Security Administration to always improve service to the American people—and held the agency accountable when necessary. His leadership resulted in significant improvements to Social Security, including the elimination of the retirement earnings test for certain seniors, removal of Social Security numbers from Medicare cards, and much-needed changes to the representative payee program. His influence can be seen across a variety of agency efforts—a renewed focus on service delivery, much-needed modernization of information technology, and improved efforts to stop fraud—and will continue for years to come.
In a 2016 interview, Johnson said, “I hope that any legacy I leave behind is one that emphasizes the importance of faith, family, service, and patriotism.”
Congressman Johnson, you have certainly done that, and America thanks you for your service.


dailysignal--2020-06-07--The Media’s Double Standard on Protest Coverage

NBC News reporter Carl Quintanilla thought he was making a powerful point , and though Twitter metrics are a dubious measure of public opinion , over 21,000 people agreed .
He observed that on May 1 , President Trump tweeted , “ The Governor of Michigan should give a little , and put out the fire .
These are very good people , but they are angry .
They want their lives back again , safely !
See them , talk to them , make a deal.
” However , on June 1 , Trump was telling a group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to arrest people , you have to track people , you have to put them in jail for 10 years and you ’ ll never see this stuff again.
” The two protests , and Trump ’ s reaction to them , weren ’ t really comparable despite the inflammatory racial overtones of the comparison .
If Quintanilla was trying to be fair , some context is required .
The anti-lockdown protests Trump tweeted about on May 1 were inadvisable due to the threat of spreading the coronavirus , and the visuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifles disturbed some people .
Most Americans disapproved of them .
These protests were also small , took place in only a handful of states , and involved very few disturbances of the peace .
The second Trump tweet came after days of violence and looting in scores of American cities that resulted in several deaths .
The double standard in perceptions of these two protests is pervasive and discrediting to the media .
Even worse , this naked partisanship prevents the media from acknowledging clear threats to the vulnerable American communities they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and podcaster Matt Walsh surveyed the media coverage of the anti-lockdown protests a month ago , and it ’ s hard to escape the conclusion that much of the media coverage of the current protests and riots looks duplicitous and overtly political .
Vox decried the “ whiteness of anti-lockdown protests ” and noted that “ ignorance , privilege , and anti-black racism is driving white protesters to risk their lives.
” The Guardian warned “ US lockdown protests may have spread virus widely , cellphone data suggests.
” The Harrisburg ( Pa. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by three medical ethics professors arguing , “ Lockdown protesters have a moral duty to forgo medical care in favor of those who followed the rules.
” USA Today ’ s editorial board concluded , “ Coronavirus lockdown protests risk your health and slow the reopening of U.S. economy.
” And so on .
In the last week , however , the media abruptly abandoned its obsession with public health orders , and did so just days after the media noted with great fanfare that a 100,000 Americans had died from COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage by saying , “ So what we ’ ve learned is that if you want to protest during a pandemic , do it safely by burning down buildings and beating the hell out of random bystanders .
That way you ’ ll escape criticism from the media.
” Perhaps his observation was too flippant , but that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s wrong .
Throughout the lockdown , New York Mayor Bill de Blasio pressured Jewish communities flouting the restriction orders .
On Tuesday , following an incredibly destructive night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter asked de Blasio why he was continuing to allow masses of people to be out and about protesting even as church services in the city are still forbidden .
“ Four hundred years of American racism .
I ’ m sorry , that is not the same question as the understandably aggrieved store owner or the devout religious person who wants to go back to services , ” de Blasio retorted .
There ’ s either a public health threat or there ’ s not .
De Blasio can ’ t curb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public health while allowing large groups to flout the rules in the name of exercising another .
Furthermore , his response is scientifically illiterate .
A lethal virus couldn ’ t possibly care about why protesters are out in the street in close quarters .
And just who does de Blasio think will suffer if the coronavirus infections flare up as a result of the second–and vastly more populous–spate of demonstrations ?
If the current protests and riots spawn future outbreaks , it will be especially damaging to poor Americans and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were already at increased risk .
Either de Blasio isn ’ t actually concerned about the pandemic or he feels empowered to embrace this hypocrisy because he knows the media won ’ t hold him accountable for it .
The double standard in coverage of the two protests has also manifested itself when it comes to the economy .
Anti-lockdown protesters were considered selfish because they argued in favor of reopening the economy , despite the health risks .
“ I don ’ t think you can separate the vehemence of anti-lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think we can divorce their demands to ‘ reopen ’ the economy from the knowledge that many of those most affected belong to other racial groups , ” wrote New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie on May 8 .
But three weeks later , Bouie ’ s colleagues at the Times , Jeanna Smialek and Jim Tankersley , had a different focus : “ Black Workers , Already Lagging , Face Big Economic Risks ” was the headline on the paper ’ s June 1 story .
This might be the understatement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marshaled by Smialek and Tankersley , over half of all black adults in America are currently unemployed as a result of the pandemic shutdowns .
Last fall , black unemployment was at an all-time low .
This surely had a terrible effect on recent protests .
“ Locking the country down filled the room with gas , ” observed radio host Vincent Coglianese .
“ Killing George Floyd lit the match.
” Of course , we can ’ t say the economic warnings of anti-lockdown protesters have been vindicated .
Opening up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public health disaster .
Unfortunately , the nuanced , good-faith discussions necessary to solve the big , complicated problems we ’ re facing right now have been displaced by the media ’ s confidence that it knows who ’ s wrong and who ’ s right .
Such certitude would be problematic in any context , but when tainted by partisanship it actually poses a danger to the very people reporters and commentators claim to care about .

NBC News reporter Carl Quintanilla thought he was making a powerful point, and though Twitter metrics are a dubious measure of public opinion, over 21,000 people agreed.
He observed that on May 1, President Donald Trump tweeted, “The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”
However, on June 1, Trump was telling a group of Democratic governors, “You’ve got to arrest people, you have to track people, you have to put them in jail for 10 years and you’ll never see this stuff again.”
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The two protests, and Trump’s reaction to them, weren’t really comparable despite the inflammatory racial overtones of the comparison. If Quintanilla was trying to be fair, some context is required.
The anti-lockdown protests Trump tweeted about on May 1 were inadvisable due to the threat of spreading the coronavirus, and the visuals of people strolling near the Capitol carrying rifles disturbed some people. Most Americans disapproved of them. These protests were also small, took place in only a handful of states, and involved very few disturbances of the peace.
The second Trump tweet came after days of violence and looting in scores of American cities that resulted in several deaths.
The double standard in perceptions of these two protests is pervasive and discrediting to the media. Even worse, this naked partisanship prevents the media from acknowledging clear threats to the vulnerable American communities they profess to care about.
Right-of-center writer and podcaster Matt Walsh surveyed the media coverage of the anti-lockdown protests a month ago, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that much of the media coverage of the current protests and riots looks duplicitous and overtly political.
Vox decried the “whiteness of anti-lockdown protests” and noted that “ignorance, privilege, and anti-black racism is driving white protesters to risk their lives.”
The Guardian warned “US lockdown protests may have spread virus widely, cellphone data suggests.”
The Harrisburg (Pennsylvania) Patriot-News published a widely circulated op-ed by three medical ethics professors arguing, “Lockdown protesters have a moral duty to forgo medical care in favor of those who followed the rules.”
A Washington Post editor opined, “Lockdown protesters don’t care about lives.”
USA Today’s editorial board concluded, “Coronavirus lockdown protests risk your health and slow the reopening of U.S. economy.”
And so on.
In the last week, however, the media abruptly abandoned its obsession with public health orders, and did so just days after the media noted with great fanfare that 100,000 Americans had died from COVID-19.
Walsh concluded his survey of the media coverage by saying, “So what we’ve learned is that if you want to protest during a pandemic, do it safely by burning down buildings and beating the hell out of random bystanders. That way you’ll escape criticism from the media.”
Perhaps his observation was too flippant, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Throughout the lockdown, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio pressured Jewish communities flouting the restriction orders. On Tuesday, following an incredibly destructive night of looting across the city, a reporter asked de Blasio why he was continuing to allow masses of people to be out and about protesting even as church services in the city are still forbidden.
“Four hundred years of American racism. I’m sorry, that is not the same question as the understandably aggrieved store owner or the devout religious person who wants to go back to services,” de Blasio retorted.
There’s either a public health threat or there’s not. De Blasio can’t curb one First Amendment right in the name of public health while allowing large groups to flout the rules in the name of exercising another.
Furthermore, his response is scientifically illiterate. A lethal virus couldn’t possibly care about why protesters are out in the street in close quarters. And just who does de Blasio think will suffer if the coronavirus infections flare up as a result of the second—and vastly more populous—spate of demonstrations?
If the current protests and riots spawn future outbreaks, it will be especially damaging to poor Americans and the black populations in America’s cities who were already at increased risk.
Either de Blasio isn’t actually concerned about the pandemic or he feels empowered to embrace this hypocrisy because he knows the media won’t hold him accountable for it.
The double standard in coverage of the two protests has also manifested itself when it comes to the economy. Anti-lockdown protesters were considered selfish because they argued in favor of reopening the economy, despite the health risks.
“I don’t think you can separate the vehemence of anti-lockdown protesters from their whiteness, nor do I think we can divorce their demands to ‘reopen’ the economy from the knowledge that many of those most affected belong to other racial groups,” wrote New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie on May 8.
But three weeks later, Bouie’s colleagues at the Times, Jeanna Smialek and Jim Tankersley, had a different focus: “Black Workers, Already Lagging, Face Big Economic Risks” was the headline on the paper’s June 1 story. This might be the understatement of the year.
According to data marshaled by Smialek and Tankersley, over half of all black adults in America are currently unemployed as a result of the pandemic shutdowns. Last fall, black unemployment was at an all-time low.
This surely had a terrible effect on recent protests. “Locking the country down filled the room with gas,” observed radio host Vincent Coglianese. “Killing George Floyd lit the match.”
Of course, we can’t say the economic warnings of anti-lockdown protesters have been vindicated. Opening up the country a month ago might have been a public health disaster.
Unfortunately, the nuanced, good-faith discussions necessary to solve the big, complicated problems we’re facing right now have been displaced by the media’s confidence that it knows who’s wrong and who’s right.
Such certitude would be problematic in any context, but when tainted by partisanship it actually poses a danger to the very people reporters and commentators claim to care about.
Originally published by RealClearPolitics


dailysignal--2020-06-08--A Loss for Anti-Trump Media Forces: Michael Pack Confirmed as Agency for Global Media Head

After a delay of two years , on Thursday the U.S. Senate confirmed Michael Pack as the new chief executive officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media , which oversees Voice of America .
About time !
Pack ’ s confirmation follows a period of unconscionable delay , strategizing , and obstructionism by Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee .
He and his family have been in limbo for much too long .
This behavior culminated in a lengthy rant by Sen. Robert Menendez , D-N.J. , who has been a key member of the opposition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote because of an official investigation of Pack ’ s finances that Menendez himself had instigated the day before .
Despite this , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , eventually moved the nomination , pressured by the White House .
The final vote came in at 53-38 , with Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W.Va. , voting with the Republicans .
Why was Pack ’ s nomination to lead the $ 700 million agency that oversees U.S. civilian media and communication assets so controversial ?
The fact is that even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Trump media forces have fanned the flames with scare-mongering , speculation , and very few facts .
This opposition includes some inside the U.S. Agency for Global Media who have powerful allies among the so-called mainstream media .
The oft-repeated , but unsubstantiated allegation is that Pack will turn the agenda into a propaganda shop for the Trump administration .
There is bipartisan recognition of the need to reform the U.S. international broadcasting complex .
In 2013 , then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing , “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of its capability to be able to tell a message around the world.
” It was President Barack Obama who signed into law the legislation that created the CEO position , for which Pack was just confirmed .
This bill also disbanded the nine-member board that had been acting as a dysfunctional collective executive of the agency .
Allegations have arisen that President Donald Trump disbanded the board .
No , Obama did , and did so because it wasn ’ t working .
To his credit , Obama laid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ functioning broadcasting agency .
A number of challenges face Pack as he moves into his new position .
As written into law , he will be supported by a four-member board with only advisory powers .
For years , the agency has been plagued by scandals and bad management .
Accountability needs to be restored .
Journalistic standards and respect for the mission outlined in the agency ’ s charter also have to be elevated .
The agency is supposed to serve audiences around the world with objective and accurate reporting .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reporters are independent , that no political influence is telling them how to report the news and what to say , ” Pack stated at his hearing .
“ Without that trust , I think , the agency is completely undermined.
” Yet at the same time , the agency is also mandated to fairly present U.S. policy and discussion of the same .
That second part of its mission often meets with entrenched opposition from the agency ’ s journalistic staff .
Beyond that , there is a question of personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right and responsibility to make in order to improve the agency .
Such changes will almost certainly be portrayed in the media as resulting from ideological motivations .
Michael Pack has a long track record as a professional and experienced media executive , with a background that spans the Broadcasting Board of Governors ( as the U.S. Agency for Global Media used to be called ) and National Public Radio .
He can be trusted to make good and reasonable choices .

After a delay of two years, on Thursday the U.S. Senate confirmed Michael Pack as the new chief executive officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America. About time!
Pack’s confirmation follows a period of unconscionable delay, strategizing, and obstructionism by Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He and his family have been in limbo for much too long.
This behavior culminated in a lengthy rant by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who has been a key member of the opposition, and who recently demanded a delay of the vote because of an official investigation of Pack’s finances that Menendez himself had instigated the day before.
Despite this, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., eventually moved the nomination, pressured by the White House. The final vote came in at 53-38, with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., voting with the Republicans.
Why was Pack’s nomination to lead the $700 million agency that oversees U.S. civilian media and communication assets so controversial? The fact is that even though Pack is well-qualified for the post, anti-Trump media forces have fanned the flames with scare-mongering, speculation, and very few facts.
This opposition includes some inside the U.S. Agency for Global Media who have powerful allies among the so-called mainstream media. The oft-repeated, but unsubstantiated allegation is that Pack will turn the agenda into a propaganda shop for the Trump administration.
There is bipartisan recognition of the need to reform the U.S. international broadcasting complex. In 2013, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, “The Broadcasting Board of Governors is practically defunct in terms of its capability to be able to tell a message around the world.”
It was President Barack Obama who signed into law the legislation that created the CEO position, for which Pack was just confirmed. This bill also disbanded the nine-member board that had been acting as a dysfunctional collective executive of the agency.
Allegations have arisen that President Donald Trump disbanded the board. No, Obama did, and did so because it wasn’t working. To his credit, Obama laid the groundwork for a more streamlined and better functioning broadcasting agency.
A number of challenges face Pack as he moves into his new position. As written into law, he will be supported by a four-member board with only advisory powers. For years, the agency has been plagued by scandals and bad management. Accountability needs to be restored.
Journalistic standards and respect for the mission outlined in the agency’s charter also have to be elevated. The agency is supposed to serve audiences around the world with objective and accurate reporting.
“The whole agency rests on the belief the reporters are independent, that no political influence is telling them how to report the news and what to say,” Pack stated at his hearing. “Without that trust, I think, the agency is completely undermined.”
Yet at the same time, the agency is also mandated to fairly present U.S. policy and discussion of the same. That second part of its mission often meets with entrenched opposition from the agency’s journalistic staff.
Beyond that, there is a question of personnel changes, which Pack will have the right and responsibility to make in order to improve the agency. Such changes will almost certainly be portrayed in the media as resulting from ideological motivations.
Michael Pack has a long track record as a professional and experienced media executive, with a background that spans the Broadcasting Board of Governors (as the U.S. Agency for Global Media used to be called) and National Public Radio. He can be trusted to make good and reasonable choices.


dailysignal--2020-06-09--A Contract With Black America

A Contract With Black America

On Oct. 26 , 2016 , presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke to a mostly African American audience in Charlotte , North Carolina .
He said : Prior to the economic shutdown and the murder of George Floyd , some believe Trump was on his way to fulfilling that promise .
Even if the economic comeback is strong , something else is needed .
In 1994 , Republican Congressmen Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey created a Contract with America , a list of proposed legislation they promised would be enacted if voters gave their party a House majority .
They did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not pass or were watered down in negotiations with President Bill Clinton , a few survived and became law .
That contract was a good idea because it helped to change the political dynamic in favor of Republican issues .
What is needed now is a Contract with Black America .
I asked Gingrich what such a contract might include .
In addition to reinforcing universal values like health , strong families , faith , home , and property ownership , the former speaker added : Recruiting neighborhood residents for the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken relationship between law enforcement and African Americans in this country .
Turning opportunity zones into “ reality zones ” is also a positive suggestion .
Gingrich explains : “ Opportunity zones have had relatively limited impacts because they use capital gains tax money , which doesn ’ t help small businesses and only have an indirect impact.
” The real challenge , he says , is not only economic , but cultural and structural : “ To succeed there has to be safety from crime and work has to pay more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distance learning , support groups ( an opportunity I would add for retirees to share their experience and skills ) , and free online education that includes the basics of reading , writing , and math “ so that every person who was cheated by the failed government schools early in their life can get free access to learning and mentoring.
” He also recommends a “ sweat equity program so everyone in public housing has the opportunity to earn equity in their home by taking care of it and learning to maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but these are his fundamentals .
Beyond Gingrich ’ s ideas is a need to better know each other .
How many white people know any black people ?
How often—if at all—do white people invite those of a different race or ethnicity to their homes for a meal and the reverse ?
Those Wednesday night suppers many churches offer would be an ideal beginning for interaction .
We don ’ t listen enough to each other ’ s stories .
Instead , too many throw rhetorical bombs ( and during the recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prejudices and stereotypes .
The media are conspirators in this because they rarely show pictures or do interviews with peaceful protesters , or even those African Americans who aren ’ t protesting .
As a political strategy ( doing good should be sufficient motive ) , Republicans might peel off significant numbers of African American voters from Democrats , if they made solid and workable promises to that community .
In his Charlotte speech , Trump said : Enough waiting .
The time is now .
There is nothing we can not accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too great .
There is no dream outside of our reach .
Everywhere I go in this country , all I see is untapped potential waiting to be set free .
And maybe the greatest of that potential is in the African American communities .
Let ’ s get that contract with black America written and passed .
There may never be a better time .
( C ) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY , LLC .

On Oct. 26, 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke to a mostly African American audience in Charlotte, North Carolina. He said:
Every African American citizen in this country is entitled to a government that puts their jobs, wages, and security first. … I will not let you down. You watch. … Here is the promise I make to you. Whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion.
Prior to the economic shutdown and the murder of George Floyd, some believe Trump was on his way to fulfilling that promise. Even if the economic comeback is strong, something else is needed.
In 1994, Republican Congressmen Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey created a Contract with America, a list of proposed legislation they promised would be enacted if voters gave their party a House majority. They did.
Though many of the proposals either did not pass or were watered down in negotiations with President Bill Clinton, a few survived and became law.
That contract was a good idea because it helped to change the political dynamic in favor of Republican issues. What is needed now is a Contract with Black America.
I asked Gingrich what such a contract might include. In addition to reinforcing universal values like health, strong families, faith, home, and property ownership, the former speaker added:
Develop a new public-private partnership with neighborhood churches to strengthen their role in the community, including child care, better schools, and K-12 Pell Grants that parents could spend at church schools, private schools, charter schools, or traditional public schools.
Recruiting neighborhood residents for the police is another good suggestion, given the broken relationship between law enforcement and African Americans in this country.
Turning opportunity zones into “reality zones” is also a positive suggestion. Gingrich explains: “Opportunity zones have had relatively limited impacts because they use capital gains tax money, which doesn’t help small businesses and only have an indirect impact.”
The real challenge, he says, is not only economic, but cultural and structural: “To succeed there has to be safety from crime and work has to pay more than either dependency or crime.”
He proposes distance learning, support groups (an opportunity I would add for retirees to share their experience and skills), and free online education that includes the basics of reading, writing, and math “so that every person who was cheated by the failed government schools early in their life can get free access to learning and mentoring.”
He also recommends a “sweat equity program so everyone in public housing has the opportunity to earn equity in their home by taking care of it and learning to maintain it.”
There’s more, but these are his fundamentals.
Beyond Gingrich’s ideas is a need to better know each other. How many white people know any black people? How often—if at all—do white people invite those of a different race or ethnicity to their homes for a meal and the reverse? Those Wednesday night suppers many churches offer would be an ideal beginning for interaction.
We don’t listen enough to each other’s stories. Instead, too many throw rhetorical bombs (and during the recent riots, Molotov cocktails), reinforcing prejudices and stereotypes. The media are conspirators in this because they rarely show pictures or do interviews with peaceful protesters, or even those African Americans who aren’t protesting.
As a political strategy (doing good should be sufficient motive), Republicans might peel off significant numbers of African American voters from Democrats, if they made solid and workable promises to that community.
In his Charlotte speech, Trump said:
Enough waiting. The time is now. There is nothing we cannot accomplish. There is no task or project too great. There is no dream outside of our reach. Everywhere I go in this country, all I see is untapped potential waiting to be set free. And maybe the greatest of that potential is in the African American communities.
Let’s get that contract with black America written and passed. There may never be a better time.
(C) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-06-10--The Social Justice Warriors’ Takeover of Newsrooms

In the wake of the protests and riots that erupted following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer , a revealing transformation has been occurring in the country ’ s media landscape .
This is now the message coming from the media : The narrative about how society should look at this incident shall remain in accordance with the most radical , “ woke ” voices .
Deviating opinions will not be tolerated .
Words are violence .
That attitude was on full display in a dustup at America ’ s leading liberal newspaper .
Chaos at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published an editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton , R-Ark.
, who argued that cities with police forces overwhelmed by looting and violence have the option , under the federal Insurrection Act , to request aid from the military .
The article ’ s headline was “ Call in the Troops , ” which had been selected by New York Times editors .
In it , Cotton explained how military force has been used to quell domestic unrest in the past , including those who attempted to obstruct desegregation at Little Rock ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Following the article ’ s publication on June 3 , New York Times reporters and editors protested publicly en masse .
Many claimed that Cotton ’ s opinions put their colleagues “ in danger.
” The same New York Times has also published Russian leader Vladimir Putin , a member of the Taliban , a long symposium glorifying the communist Russian Revolution of 1917 , and even an excerpt of “ Mein Kampf ” in the 1940s ( to demonstrate the philosophy of Hitler as the nation entered World War II ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. senator , articulating views shared by more than half of registered voters and 37 % of black voters , according to a Morning Consult poll , is beyond the pale and a literal threat to fellow Americans ?
Instead of standing by the practice of publishing diverse opinions , The New York Times appended a lengthy editor ’ s note to Cotton ’ s column , saying that the piece “ fell short of our standards and should not have been published.
” However , the note didn ’ t list any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cotton ’ s characterizations of the protests .
It concluded by saying that the tone of the piece was “ needlessly harsh.
” I challenge anyone reading the piece to check out this week ’ s lineup of New York Times editorials and columns and not find one that ’ s harsh .
A recent Paul Krugman editorial column , for instance , insinuated that President Donald Trump is provoking a race war and that the president is “ clearly itching for an excuse to use force.
” It didn ’ t end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , James Bennet , was effectively forced to step down and resigned from the position .
Whatever else can be said of the merits of Cotton ’ s piece or of whatever else is published generally in The New York Times , it ’ s increasingly clear that newsrooms of the most prominent liberal publications are being taken over by the most radical voices , who demand that they maintain an increasingly rigid ideological line in how they cover—and comment on—the news of the day .
Similar revolts and controversies have occurred in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer , Stan Wischnowski , resigned on Saturday after he received blowback from the paper ’ s staff about an article given the headline “ Buildings Matter , Too.
” The article was about damage to buildings and how riots are destructive .
The Inquirer issued an apology and said : “ The headline offensively riffed on the Black Lives Matter movement , and suggested an equivalence between the loss of buildings and the lives of black Americans .
That is unacceptable.
” Meanwhile , the news website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they can join the protests taking place around the country and that the company would bail out employees who get arrested and would also cover medical expenses for those who get injured in the process .
The fact is , most of America ’ s leading “ mainstream ” media outlets have leaned to the left—in some cases , the far left—of the average American for a long time .
Generations , really .
The difference , however , is that in the past they at least attempted to thread the needle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devolving into cheerleading for the Democratic Party or leading with activism at the expense of at least some measure of objectivity .
Wesley Lowery—a correspondent for “ 60 in 6 , ” a short-form spinoff of CBS ’ “ 60 Minutes ” for the Quibi short-form streaming service—wrote of this turning point in journalism on Twitter : “ American view-from-nowhere , ‘ objectivity ’ -obsessed , both-sides journalism is a failed experiment .
We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field .
The old way must go .
We need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a place of moral clarity.
” That old dynamic of objectivity is crumbling , as newsrooms are now being turned entirely over to the whims of the most activist social justice warriors , who demand political conformity with a strident push toward the left ’ s current cultural and political aims .
It ’ s a process that has already taken place on America ’ s college campuses for several generations as aggressive left-wing activists push the mostly liberal faculty and staff to be more aggressively left-wing .
But campus politics are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nikole Hannah-Jones , the lead architect of the Pulitzer Prize-winning—but factually challenged— “ 1619 Project , ” actually did a good job of revealing and elucidating what ’ s happening in our leading newspapers ’ newsrooms .
She said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that outlets need to abandon the adherence to “ evenhandedness , both-sideism , ” and that an article offering the views of someone like Cotton should only occur in a news piece “ where we can check the facts , where we can push back , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what she called “ misinformation.
” We can ’ t let people decide for themselves what to believe , after all , without social justice warriors—I mean , reporters—guiding the way and leading us along .
People might start to form opinions of their own .
The horror !
Hannah-Jones then said , “ Our role as journalists is to give people correct information so they can make decisions , ” but clearly demonstrated that she thinks the role of journalists is subtle and not-so-subtle activism , rather than simply reporting the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off for media outlets , big and small , that are now revealing that they are ultimately tools of the political left , rather than objective guardians of truth as they often portray themselves .
Perhaps that ’ s a case of back to the future .
After all , into the early 20th century , newspapers were mostly partisan organizations affiliated with political parties without the veneer of independence .
The recent actions of many prominent media outlets simply reveal and highlight what many Americans already know ; namely , that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the news that ’ s fit to print , ” as the Times ’ motto insists .
It ’ s a clarifying moment—or at least it should be—for Americans who have been under the illusion that they can simply trust , without question , what they see in even the most prominent and established publications .

In the wake of the protests and riots that erupted following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, a revealing transformation has been occurring in the country’s media landscape.
This is now the message coming from the media: The narrative about how society should look at this incident shall remain in accordance with the most radical, “woke” voices. Deviating opinions will not be tolerated. Words are violence.
That attitude was on full display in a dustup at America’s leading liberal newspaper.
Chaos at The New York Times began after it published an editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who argued that cities with police forces overwhelmed by looting and violence have the option, under the federal Insurrection Act, to request aid from the military.
The article’s headline was “Call in the Troops,” which had been selected by New York Times editors.
In it, Cotton explained how military force has been used to quell domestic unrest in the past, including those who attempted to obstruct desegregation at Little Rock’s Central High School in Arkansas in 1957.
Following the article’s publication on June 3, New York Times reporters and editors protested publicly en masse. Many claimed that Cotton’s opinions put their colleagues “in danger.”
NYT reporters in a rare open revolt over the opinion side running Tom Cotton’s op-Ed calling to deploy the military to “restore order.” pic.twitter.com/MgLuR8EunJ — Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) June 3, 2020
The same New York Times has also published Russian leader Vladimir Putin, a member of the Taliban, a long symposium glorifying the communist Russian Revolution of 1917, and even an excerpt of “Mein Kampf” in the 1940s (to demonstrate the philosophy of Hitler as the nation entered World War II).
Yet, an editorial by a U.S. senator, articulating views shared by more than half of registered voters and 37% of black voters, according to a Morning Consult poll, is beyond the pale and a literal threat to fellow Americans?
Instead of standing by the practice of publishing diverse opinions, The New York Times appended a lengthy editor’s note to Cotton’s column, saying that the piece “fell short of our standards and should not have been published.”
However, the note didn’t list any serious fact-based inaccuracies and only nitpicked at Cotton’s characterizations of the protests. It concluded by saying that the tone of the piece was “needlessly harsh.”
I challenge anyone reading the piece to check out this week’s lineup of New York Times editorials and columns and not find one that’s harsh. A recent Paul Krugman editorial column, for instance, insinuated that President Donald Trump is provoking a race war and that the president is “clearly itching for an excuse to use force.”
It didn’t end there, however. The editorial-page editor, James Bennet, was effectively forced to step down and resigned from the position.
Whatever else can be said of the merits of Cotton’s piece or of whatever else is published generally in The New York Times, it’s increasingly clear that newsrooms of the most prominent liberal publications are being taken over by the most radical voices, who demand that they maintain an increasingly rigid ideological line in how they cover—and comment on—the news of the day.
Similar revolts and controversies have occurred in other newsrooms across the country.
The top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Stan Wischnowski, resigned on Saturday after he received blowback from the paper’s staff about an article given the headline “Buildings Matter, Too.”
The article was about damage to buildings and how riots are destructive.
The Inquirer issued an apology and said: “The headline offensively riffed on the Black Lives Matter movement, and suggested an equivalence between the loss of buildings and the lives of black Americans. That is unacceptable.”
Meanwhile, the news website Axios released a memo telling its reporters that they can join the protests taking place around the country and that the company would bail out employees who get arrested and would also cover medical expenses for those who get injured in the process.
The fact is, most of America’s leading “mainstream” media outlets have leaned to the left—in some cases, the far left—of the average American for a long time. Generations, really.
The difference, however, is that in the past they at least attempted to thread the needle of nudging the country leftward without outright devolving into cheerleading for the Democratic Party or leading with activism at the expense of at least some measure of objectivity.
Wesley Lowery—a correspondent for “60 in 6,” a short-form spinoff of CBS’ “60 Minutes” for the Quibi short-form streaming service—wrote of this turning point in journalism on Twitter:
“American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.”
American view-from-nowhere, "objectivity"-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity — Wesley (@WesleyLowery) June 4, 2020
That old dynamic of objectivity is crumbling, as newsrooms are now being turned entirely over to the whims of the most activist social justice warriors, who demand political conformity with a strident push toward the left’s current cultural and political aims.
It’s a process that has already taken place on America’s college campuses for several generations as aggressive left-wing activists push the mostly liberal faculty and staff to be more aggressively left-wing. But campus politics are spilling over into the rest of society.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead architect of the Pulitzer Prize-winning—but factually challenged—“1619 Project,” actually did a good job of revealing and elucidating what’s happening in our leading newspapers’ newsrooms.
She said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that outlets need to abandon the adherence to “evenhandedness, both-sideism,” and that an article offering the views of someone like Cotton should only occur in a news piece “where we can check the facts, where we can push back,” so readers wouldn’t receive what she called “misinformation.”
We can’t let people decide for themselves what to believe, after all, without social justice warriors—I mean, reporters—guiding the way and leading us along. People might start to form opinions of their own. The horror!
Hannah-Jones then said, “Our role as journalists is to give people correct information so they can make decisions,” but clearly demonstrated that she thinks the role of journalists is subtle and not-so-subtle activism, rather than simply reporting the news.
So, the mask is coming off for media outlets, big and small, that are now revealing that they are ultimately tools of the political left, rather than objective guardians of truth as they often portray themselves.
Perhaps that’s a case of back to the future. After all, into the early 20th century, newspapers were mostly partisan organizations affiliated with political parties without the veneer of independence.
The recent actions of many prominent media outlets simply reveal and highlight what many Americans already know; namely, that they have an agenda beyond simply publishing “all the news that’s fit to print,” as the Times’ motto insists.
It’s a clarifying moment—or at least it should be—for Americans who have been under the illusion that they can simply trust, without question, what they see in even the most prominent and established publications.


dailysignal--2020-06-10--Despite Win in Wisconsin, Religious Discrimination Remains During Lockdown

As our nation finds it way forward after weeks of pandemic-related lockdowns , governments have unfortunately treated churches and religious gatherings differently—and often less favorably—than comparable secular gatherings .
This means the actions taken by some states are discriminatory .
Fortunately , defenders of the First Amendment successfully restored their right to worship in-person ( albeit in a limited capacity ) last week in Wisconsin .
Despite this , the fervor with which many local governments have cracked down on religious gatherings , in contrast to their enthusiasm for large-scale protests , shows that a stark double standard exists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of peaceful protests .
Government officials have generally not objected to them , even in light of restrictions related to the coronavirus .
In fact , many government officials have encouraged them .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Not so for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , a dispute over California ’ s reopening plan even prompted a rare late-Friday night order from the Supreme Court , in which the four liberal members and the chief justice—over dissent from the four conservative members—refused to strike down California ’ s discriminatory reopening plan .
Fortunately , California relented , and churches have been able to resume some in-person services , though still not on the same scale as other businesses have been able to operate .
Clearly , discriminatory treatment of churches persist .
Until last week , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrounding Dane County were notable examples .
As the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty pointed out , “ Under Madison/Dane County ’ s previous [ reopening ] order , shopping malls , bars , restaurants , spas , gyms , salons , museums , movie theaters , community centers , bowling alleys , skating rinks , and trampoline parks were allowed to open at 25 percent capacity , while houses of worship were subject to an arbitrary 50-person cap regardless of how large the church building was.
” In practice , this meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than 5 percent capacity.
” Moreover , threats communicated by government officials as to how they would enforce these orders were particularly troubling .
Becket said , “ [ T ] he Madison/Dane County Health Department multiple times called and visited [ Catholic ] officials and parishes to inform them that surveillance officials would be sent to churches and fines of up to $ 1,000 would be imposed for every instance in which more than 50 people were gathered for Mass.
” At least they weren ’ t threatening to record the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know of ) , as other government officials have done .
As protests emerged after the senseless death of George Floyd , Catholic officials in Madison decided that enough is enough .
Protesters and the protested alike needed prayers .
And more importantly , many in the community needed the spiritual guidance and the physical assistance that communities of faith can provide .
So , last Wednesday , attorneys for the Catholic Diocese of Madison sent a detailed 17-page letter to Madison and Dane County officials highlighting the constitutional problems caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious gatherings .
The letter informed the officials that if they didn ’ t revise their plan to treat religious gatherings the same as other comparable nonreligious gatherings by that Friday ( June 5 ) , the diocese would have no choice but to sue .
In a rare glimpse of good news , it didn ’ t come to that .
City and county officials revised their reopening plans and allowed churches to resume in-person services at 25 % capacity .
As Eric Rassbach with the Becket Fund said , “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County came to their senses , but it shouldn ’ t have taken so long … Most other governments nationwide have already lifted their COVID-related restrictions on worship .
The few remaining holdouts should take note and come into compliance with the First Amendment.
” New York City ’ s mayor , Bill de Blasio , would do well to pay close attention .
When asked why mass protests , an activity protected by the First Amendment when peaceful , are OK during the current pandemic , but large religious gatherings , also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are not , de Blasio gave a more honest answer than he probably intended .
It was obvious from his response that the cause of the protesters is important to him .
The cause of religious individuals , less so .
That should terrify us .
Government leaders picking and choosing which constitutionally protected activities are permissible defeats the very purpose for which the Framers put those protections in place .
They ’ re fundamental rights not subject to the whims of the majority or of potentially hostile elected officials .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad deference to elected officials during the pandemic and warned against “ second-guessing by an ‘ unelected federal judiciary , ’ which lacks the background , competence , and expertise to asses public health and is not accountable to the people , ” he must surely agree that such picking-and-choosing runs afoul of the Constitution and wouldn ’ t be the type of impermissible second-guessing he ’ s worried about .
Consider this : At the end of April , de Blasio said , “ My message to the Jewish community , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time for warnings has passed .
I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups .
This is about stopping this disease and saving lives .
Period.
” But today , as the mayor struggles to get his city under control , to stop rioting , and to protect peaceful protesters , NYPD officers patrol the city ’ s Jewish neighborhoods to shut down businesses and break up Torah study sessions while massive protests occur only a few miles away .
If this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what does ?
Everyone must remember that both prayers and protests are protected during this current pandemic .
The government should not prohibit either .
More importantly , government officials can not permit one while prohibiting the other based solely on their policy preferences .

As our nation finds it way forward after weeks of pandemic-related lockdowns, governments have unfortunately treated churches and religious gatherings differently—and often less favorably—than comparable secular gatherings. This means the actions taken by some states are discriminatory.
Fortunately, defenders of the First Amendment successfully restored their right to worship in-person (albeit in a limited capacity) last week in Wisconsin. Despite this, the fervor with which many local governments have cracked down on religious gatherings, in contrast to their enthusiasm for large-scale protests, shows that a stark double standard exists.
Of course, everyone recognizes the importance of peaceful protests. Government officials have generally not objected to them, even in light of restrictions related to the coronavirus. In fact, many government officials have encouraged them.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Not so for religious gatherings, though.
Two weeks ago, a dispute over California’s reopening plan even prompted a rare late-Friday night order from the Supreme Court, in which the four liberal members and the chief justice—over dissent from the four conservative members—refused to strike down California’s discriminatory reopening plan.
Fortunately, California relented, and churches have been able to resume some in-person services, though still not on the same scale as other businesses have been able to operate.
Clearly, discriminatory treatment of churches persist. Until last week, the governments of Madison, Wisconsin, and surrounding Dane County were notable examples.
As the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty pointed out, “Under Madison/Dane County’s previous [reopening] order, shopping malls, bars, restaurants, spas, gyms, salons, museums, movie theaters, community centers, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and trampoline parks were allowed to open at 25 percent capacity, while houses of worship were subject to an arbitrary 50-person cap regardless of how large the church building was.”
In practice, this meant that some churches “were held to less than 5 percent capacity.”
Moreover, threats communicated by government officials as to how they would enforce these orders were particularly troubling.
Becket said, “[T]he Madison/Dane County Health Department multiple times called and visited [Catholic] officials and parishes to inform them that surveillance officials would be sent to churches and fines of up to $1,000 would be imposed for every instance in which more than 50 people were gathered for Mass.”
At least they weren’t threatening to record the license plates of all attendees (that we know of), as other government officials have done.
As protests emerged after the senseless death of George Floyd, Catholic officials in Madison decided that enough is enough. Protesters and the protested alike needed prayers. And more importantly, many in the community needed the spiritual guidance and the physical assistance that communities of faith can provide.
So, last Wednesday, attorneys for the Catholic Diocese of Madison sent a detailed 17-page letter to Madison and Dane County officials highlighting the constitutional problems caused by their reopening plans’ unequal treatment of religious gatherings.
The letter informed the officials that if they didn’t revise their plan to treat religious gatherings the same as other comparable nonreligious gatherings by that Friday (June 5), the diocese would have no choice but to sue.
In a rare glimpse of good news, it didn’t come to that. City and county officials revised their reopening plans and allowed churches to resume in-person services at 25% capacity.
As Eric Rassbach with the Becket Fund said, “We’re glad that Madison and Dane County came to their senses, but it shouldn’t have taken so long … Most other governments nationwide have already lifted their COVID-related restrictions on worship. The few remaining holdouts should take note and come into compliance with the First Amendment.”
Amen to that.
New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, would do well to pay close attention. When asked why mass protests, an activity protected by the First Amendment when peaceful, are OK during the current pandemic, but large religious gatherings, also an activity protected by the First Amendment, are not, de Blasio gave a more honest answer than he probably intended.
It was obvious from his response that the cause of the protesters is important to him. The cause of religious individuals, less so.
That should terrify us. Government leaders picking and choosing which constitutionally protected activities are permissible defeats the very purpose for which the Framers put those protections in place. They’re fundamental rights not subject to the whims of the majority or of potentially hostile elected officials.
While the chief justice emphasized the need for broad deference to elected officials during the pandemic and warned against “second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to asses public health and is not accountable to the people,” he must surely agree that such picking-and-choosing runs afoul of the Constitution and wouldn’t be the type of impermissible second-guessing he’s worried about.
Consider this: At the end of April, de Blasio said, “My message to the Jewish community, and all communities is this simple: The time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period.”
But today, as the mayor struggles to get his city under control, to stop rioting, and to protect peaceful protesters, NYPD officers patrol the city’s Jewish neighborhoods to shut down businesses and break up Torah study sessions while massive protests occur only a few miles away.
If this doesn’t smack of unequal treatment, what does?
Everyone must remember that both prayers and protests are protected during this current pandemic. The government should not prohibit either. More importantly, government officials cannot permit one while prohibiting the other based solely on their policy preferences.