We’re Not Orwellian, YOU’RE Orwellian! – PJ Media– pjmedia.com
Source Link
Excerpt:
One of the most effective aspects of the Trump campaign’s critique of the Biden regime was that it was authoritarian, bent on framing its principal opponent on various bogus crimes and destroying the freedom of speech by forcing Americans to accept a wide array of falsehoods, chief among them being that men can become women and legitimately star in women’s sports. Numerous patriots termed this leftist authoritarianism “Orwellian” and have continued to do so, and the New York Times is clearly feeling the sting.
Leftists, after all, thought they owned Orwell, and that any totalitarian regime that resembled the one in 1984 would come from the right. On Saturday, the Times feebly and petulantly tried to make the case that it is Trump and his supporters, not leftists, who are really Orwellian.
If it sounds like a fool’s errand, that’s only because it is. The leftist flagship that insisted on referring to guys such as Rachel Levine and Caitlyn Jenner as if they were really the women they wish they were now expects you to believe that the real manipulation of language is to be found in “Trump’s airbrushing of the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as a ‘beautiful day’ and the pardoning of violent rioters who, he said, had ‘love in their hearts,’” which, the Times insists, “recalls one of Orwell’s quotes: ‘The past is whatever the Party chooses to make it.’”
See, the Times can call Trump’s words about Jan. 6 “Orwellian” because it is familiar with the old leftist tactic of accusing the enemy of doing what the accuser is actually doing himself. The left, with the Grey Lady leading the way, fabricated the entire Jan. 6 “insurrection” narrative out of a guy with Viking horns walking around and some elderly ladies snapping selfies in the Capitol rotunda after the police opened the doors and ushered them in. Now this is “the deadly Jan. 6 attack,” even though the only person who was actually killed on that day was a Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt.
DNC Media
Washington Post Faces Mass Cancellations After Jeff Bezos’ Editorial Changes – MSN
Source Link
Excerpt:
Newspapers rely on digital subscriptions to survive. Losing subscribers is a big deal, especially for a major publication.
The Washington Post is now facing a wave of cancellations. More than 75,000 digital subscribers have reportedly canceled their memberships, according to Digi24.
This follows changes made by the newspaper’s owner, Jeff Bezos.
NPR reported that the cancellations were linked to new restrictions on opinion coverage. The number came from an anonymous source who feared backlash from the company.
The Washington Post declined to comment on the figures. It also did not respond to criticism about the changes.
Bezos announced a new editorial approach on Wednesday. He said the newspaper would focus on supporting personal freedoms and free markets.
CBS News saw the anchor of its show “Face the Nation” espouse the assumption that free speech is what gave rise to Nazism. The counter is that Nazis did NOT, in fact, allow free speech, but she MIGHT BE claiming free speech BEFORE Hitler gave rise to Hitler. However, while the Weimer republic ended a lot of press censorship, they still had many anti-free-speech laws, including hate speech laws.
The host, Margaret Brennan, made this claim to Secretary of State Rubio: “Well, (Vice President Vance) was standing in (Germany) where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that.”
Nazis ‘Weaponized’ Free Speech to Conduct the Holocaust– www.breitbart.com
Source Link
Excerpt:
CBS’s “Face the Nation” anchor Margaret Brennan said Sunday on “Face the Nation” that Nazis “weaponized” free speech to conduct the Holocaust during an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what happened in Munich, Germany, at the Security Conference. Vice President Vance gave a speech, and he told U.S. allies that the threat he worries about the most is not Russia, it is not China. He called it the “threat from within,” and he lectured about what he described as censorship, mainly focusing, though, on including more views from the right. He also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AfD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are, after all, democracies. The Munich- Munich Security Conference is largely a conference of democracies in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak freely and provide your opinions. And so, I think if anyone’s angry about his words, they don’t have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think actually makes his point. I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech, whether you agree with him or not. I think the valid points he’s making to Europe is, we are concerned that the true values that we share, the values that bind us together with Europe, are things like free speech and democracy and our shared history in winning two world wars and defeating Soviet communism and the like.
These are the values that we shared in common, and in that cold war we fought against things like censorship and oppression and so forth, and when you see backsliding, and you raise that, that’s a very valid concern. We can’t tell them how to run their countries. We are- he simply expressed in a speech his view of it, which a lot of people, frankly, share. And I thought he said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said. And honestly, I don’t know why anybody would be upset about it. People are- you know, you don’t have to agree on someone’s speech. I happen to agree with a lot of what he said, but you don’t have to agree with someone’s speech to- to at least appreciate the fact they have a right to say it and that you should listen to it and see whether those criticisms are valid. I assure you, the United States has come under withering criticism on many occasions from many leaders in Europe, and we don’t go around throwing temper tantrums about it.
BRENNAN: Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that. That the censorship was specifically about the right–
RUBIO: — Well I have to disagree with you. No- I have- I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they- they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that’s not an accurate reflection of history. I also think it’s wrong- again, I go back to the point of his speech. The point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance or opposing points of view within Europe, and that’s of concern because that is eroding.
That’s not an erosion of your military capabilities, that’s not an erosion of your economic standing, that’s an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic union that everybody talks about, and I think allies and friends and partners that have worked together now for 80 years, should be able to speak frankly to one another in open forums without being offended, insulted, or upset. And I spoke to Foreign Ministers from multiple countries throughout Europe. Many of them probably didn’t like the speech or didn’t agree with it, but they were continuing to engage with us on all sorts of issues that unite us. So again, at the end of the day, I think that, you know, people give all- that is a forum in which you’re supposed to be inviting people to give speeches, not basically a chorus where everyone is saying the exact same thing. That’s not always going to be the case when it’s a collection of democracies where leaders have the right and the privilege to speak their minds in forums such as these.
After the FCC-ordered release of the CBS interview with Kamala Harris, President Donald J Trump accused CBS of engaging in “election interference.” The video shows the originally released video was highly edited to make Kamala look as good as possible. During the interview, Kamala often seen lost and answered questions almost incoherently. The edited video made her seem at least competent.
Trump said in response, “CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before. They 100% removed Kamala’s horrible election-changing answers to questions, and replaced them with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview.
This was Election-changing ‘stuff,’ Election Interference and, quite simply, Election Fraud at a level never seen before. CBS should lose its license, and the cheaters at 60 Minutes should all be thrown out, and this disreputable ‘NEWS’ show should be immediately terminated.”
New Video Shows CBS Deceptively Edited Kamala Harris Interview– thefederalist.com
Source Link
Excerpt:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ordered that CBS News release the entire “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, which the network withheld during the campaign. On Wednesday, no one was shocked to learn what everyone knew all along: CBS deceptively edited the interview to help the Harris campaign with her comically poor ability to answer questions coherently.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, CBS released only 20 minutes of a nearly hour-long interview with Harris. While calls to release the entire interview went unanswered at the time, the full video shows that CBS not only spliced her answer on American-Israeli relations in favor of Harris — the initial video that landed the outlet in hot water — but hid other key moments displaying her incapability.
“The video proves beyond a reasonable doubt that CBS News lied to the American people when they claimed they didn’t edit anything out of the video,” Nicholas Fondacaro, associate editor with MRC NewsBusters, told The Federalist. “It’s now confirmed that not only did they clean up Kamala’s word salad answers for the 60 Minutes airing, they also edited one of Whitaker’s questions because it called out the administration for getting ‘blindsided’ and ‘rebuffed’ on the international stage. Essentially, things that wouldn’t sit well with American voters ahead of what was thought to be a very tight election.”
The release of the full transcript and video interview comes after Trump sued CBS for “deceptive doctoring” of the video, which many said at the time was done essentially as a contribution to the Harris campaign. The Center for American Rights, a right-leaning law firm, also filed a complaint with the FCC to get the full interview released.
Trump-appointed FCC chair Brendan Carr obtained the full versions after pressuring CBS, which had consistently defended its decision to withhold the full versions. After the cuts, former CBS reporter Catherine Herridge — who was fired after investigating the Hunter Biden laptop — said that for CBS to release the footage or transcript would have normally been the common practice.