New York Times issues fake-news correction in article about fake news

The New York Times was forced to issue a lengthy correction after it published a false statement in an article about “fake news” on Facebook.

In an article about Facebook’s Head of News Partnerships Campbell Brown, NYT journalist Nellie Bowles originally wrote that news about the Palestinian Authority paying rewards to the families of jihadists who die fighting Israel was “an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy theories that have plagued Facebook.”

The Palestinian Authority does in fact pay a stipend to the families of dead or captured jihadists, under the Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund. The fund was introduced by Fatah in 1964, and is now administered by the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

“This financial reward clearly demonstrates the PA’s institutional commitment to sponsoring terror against Israel,” read a study from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The following day, the paper issued the following correction:

“An earlier version of this article erroneously included a reference to Palestinian actions as an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy stories that have plagued Facebook. In fact, Palestinian officials have acknowledged providing payments to the families of Palestinians killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis or convicted of terrorist acts and imprisoned in Israel; that is not a conspiracy theory.”

The error drew the ire of pro-Israel voices on Twitter, however:

Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 11.23.17 AM

Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 11.24.09 AM

Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 11.24.58 AM

Aside from the now-corrected statement, Bowles’ profile on Brown outlines how the Facebook news head has reacted to questions from the press on the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, and details Facebook’s plans to launch its own news service.

‘Is Putin a CIA agent?’ NYT’s ‘dumbest paragraphs ever printed’ ridiculed online

From the newspaper that brought you headlines like “Mother Russia crashes the Oscars,” and “What homoerotic videos can teach us about modern Russia,” comes another smash hit: “Is Putin a CIA agent?”

In the lauded journalist’s latest column, Thomas Friedman poses his ridiculous question, before unloading on the Russian leader in fourteen paragraphs of unfounded allegations, personal grievances, and impotent rage.

When he’s not trashing Putin for his “shirtless bravado” and apparent insecurity, Friedman rejoices in the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the West following the poisoning of Sergei and Julia Skripal. The fact that no evidence that Russia was involved in the poisoning was publically presented does not bother Friedman, nor does the fact that the nerve agent used may not have even originated in Russia.

Facts would only get in the way of his righteous outrage.

Likewise, Friedman describes Russia’s intervention in Syria as “another short-term sugar high for his base.” In reality, Russian intervention in Syria between 2015 and 2017 helped crush Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), to the point where the terrorist group holds only two percent of the territory it held in 2015. Russian firms are now moving into Syria to rebuild the nation’s energy grid.

Naturally, Friedman’s fellow journalists took to Twitter to savage his column. They described it as “breathtakingly stupid,” “insufferable,” and “perhaps the dumbest 8 to 10 paragraphs ever printed in the New York Times.”

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 11.19.15 AM

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 11.20.12 AM

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 11.21.25 AM

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 11.22.20 AM

Current Affairs magazine held Friedman’s column up high as an example to young writers, saying:  “once again, aspiring writers: if you’re worried that you won’t have a successful writing career because you don’t think your writing is good enough, there’s no better way of gaining confidence in your relative abilities than by reading thomas friedman’s columns.”

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 11.23.32 AM

Putin is not Friedman’s only target. He regularly uses his column to blast President Donald Trump, American gun owners, and whoever else opposes his sanctimonious brand of New York Neoliberalism.

And while it must be noted that Friedman’s opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of the Times as a whole, it’s right at home in a newspaper that devotes column inch after column inch to bashing Russia every day.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

NY Times Bans ‘Killing the Deep State’ From Bestseller List – (THIS IS WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS AMERICA)

Capture

Jerome Corsi‘s red-hot new book “Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump” is a runaway bestseller — but you’d never know that from reading The New York Times.

In an interview with Newsmax TV, Corsi said that he’s not entirely surprised at his book’s exclusion from the high-profile list.

“They don’t want any book that will support President Trump, who they detest, to be on The New York Times bestseller list. Even if the book legitimately outsells most of the other books,” he said during an appearance on “Newsmax Now.”

“It’s completely disgraceful and dishonest. But again, The New York Times is disgraceful and dishonest these days.”

Corsi told host Kirsten Haglund the Times is aware of how influential its list of top-selling books is. Better placement can lead to more sales, which generally garners more attention and opportunities for the author.

“So if they deny you from being on The New York Times bestseller list, they’re trying to have a suppression campaign to make sure that nobody reads ‘Killing the Deep State,'” Corsi said.

“They have control over a lot of the book industry and they know it. And that’s the disadvantage.”

“Killing the Deep State” debuted last week at No. 10 on the non-fiction hardcover list compiled by Nielsen BookScan, the book industry’s only nationally recognized sales tracking list.

And yet, the influential New York Times Book Review inexplicably has not listed “Deep State” on its hardcover bestseller list, despite the fact it outsold many of the books that did make its list.

For example, going by sales reported by Nielsen, “Killing the Deep State” should have landed at No. 4 on the Times’ April 1 list of its Top 15 print hardcover bestsellers, right after Tara Westover’s “Educated” (Random House).

But instead, the Times’ No. 4 spot is held by “I’ll Be Gone in the Dark,” by Michelle McNamara, (Harper) even though it sold hundreds of copies less than “Deep State” did.

“Killing the Deep State” also sold substantially more copies than the 11 other books on the list, including such titles as “Obama” by Pete Souza, “Leonardo Da Vinci” by Walter Isaacson, and “Born a Crime” by Trevor Noah.

Now Newsmax has learned that the Times has snubbed “Deep State” on its April 8 bestseller list as well.

Its second week of phenomenal sales should have put “Killing the Deep State” in the No. 5 position on the Times’ list. But you won’t see it there, either, despite having sold more than double the amount of copies of many others that are listed by the Times.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the presales of “Killing the Deep State” shot it to No. 6 on the Amazon best-seller list earlier this month.

“Killing the Deep State” is published by Humanix, a subsidiary of Newsmax. When Newsmax reached out to Brian Kennedy who answered the phone at The New York Times best-seller list to ask about the book’s absence in the face of Nielsen BookScan’s numbers, he issued a terse, “No comment.”

He declined to answer any other questions.

Read Newsmax Article: NY Times Bans ‘Killing the Deep State’ From Bestseller List | Newsmax.com
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here!

New York Times Reveals Trump, Breitbart Right On Gang Crime, Grenade Attacks in Sweden

by RAHEEM KASSAM

The New York Times has broken ranks with the the establishment media, publishing an effective mea culpa over the mainstream denial of migrant-related gang crime in Sweden.

The paper — which previously mocked President Trump for highlighting Sweden’s migrant crime problems — published over 1,500 words on the subject in its Sunday edition this weekend, stating:

Weapons from a faraway, long-ago war are flowing into immigrant neighborhoods here, puncturing Swedes’ sense of confidence and security. The country’s murder rate remains low, by American standards, and violent crime is stable or dropping in many places. But gang-related assaults and shootings are becoming more frequent, and the number of neighborhoods categorized by the police as “marred by crime, social unrest and insecurity” is rising. Crime and immigration are certain to be key issues in September’s general election, alongside the traditional debates over education and health care.

Sweden’s immigration problems have been reported on by Breitbart London since 2015, when the site dispatched reporters to the country to describe the worsening conditions in many migrant-dominated suburbs.

Additionally, Breitbart London interviewed Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie Akesson, the only politician in the country willing to speak openly about the problems. The establishment media dismissed Akesson and his Sweden Democrats as “neo Nazi”, but the party currently commands third place, with 17.3 per cent in the polls ahead of September’s elections.

In February last year, President Trump attempted to highlight the situation in Sweden, telling a campaign rally: “…look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?”

Immediately, the establishment media kicked in to deny Sweden’s mass migration problems. The Washington Post said he left Europeans “baffled”, while Politico spun the lines of pro mass migration campaigners to deny the situation. CNN went even further, lampooning the soon-to-be President’s warnings with the opening line: “Has someone stolen our meatballs?”

Now the New York Times has admitted parts of Sweden are being turned into war zones, with the use of grenades and military weapons from 1990s Yugoslavia. They quote kebab shop owner and asylum seeker Paul Borisho who — like many Europeans — expressed fear and concern over the trajectory of the continent: “Now, when I think of the future, I am afraid… I am afraid for Europe.”

Coming from anyone but an asylum seeker or kebab shop owner, such sentiments would normally be ridiculed or maligned as “xenophobic”. But even some of Sweden’s immigrants are distraught over the lack of action in the greater interest of “diversity” and “multiculturalism”.

In my book No Go Zones, I recall the words of locals:

One cab driver by the name of Jamal told me he was offered free government housing in Rinkeby, but he refused on the basis of safety. A former police officer confided that she felt safer in Sudan than in some of Sweden’s suburbs. And beat cops to the tune of 80 percent claim they are considering a career change due to the increasingly dangerous nature of their jobs.

The NYT also quotes a friend of the recently deceased immigrant Daniel Zuniga, murdered in a hand grenade attack in a Stockholm suburb. His friend Hugo Garrido told the paper: “Crime is increasing and increasing, and they aren’t doing anything about it… It’s denial. Swedes are very good people and they want to change the world. They want the rest of the world to be like Sweden. And the reality is that it’s completely different.”

His daughter, Natalia, said she would give anything to drink one more cup of coffee with him. Wanna, a tiny woman with hair nearly down to her waist, stood at the foot of the coffin, her face stretched into a mask of grief. After that she collected herself.

“He reiterated that if he died, I must return to Thailand,” she said of her husband. “He didn’t want me to live here after he died. He told me to sell the house and just leave.”

How the New York Times Spins the Memo to Divide America

by JOEL B. POLLAK4 Feb 2018

An article in the news section of the Sunday New York Times describing President Donald Trump’s reaction to the release of the House Intelligence Committee memo is a perfect example of how the “paper of record” is spinning the news to attack Trump — and divide the country.

The article, “Trump’s Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement” shows why Trump supporters, and conservatives in general, dislike and distrust the media.

Written by veteran reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Katie Benner, and Peter Baker, with contributions from Maggie Haberman and Adam Goldman, the article is a group effort that reflects the outlook of the Times as a whole.

And It performs two dirty tricks. The first: the article casts Trump’s dispute with senior members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a fight with “law enforcement” as a whole, i.e. the FBI rank-and-file or even the neighborhood cop.

Note that this runs against a consistent theme of President Trump’s presidency, which has emphasized support for law enforcement — a clear break with the Obama administration, which often supported the Black Lives Matter movement and its criticisms of police. Trump has also offered unprecedented support for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

To call his criticism of the FBI a “war” on law enforcement is just wrong.

The second trick: the article disdains evidence that the FBI and the Justice Department abused their power for political reasons. It notes that “Mr. Trump’s advisers” believe the memo “raised serious and legitimate questions about the way the F.B.I. used information gathered by a former spy paid by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Democrats to help justify a warrant for surveillance on a former Trump campaign adviser tied to Russia.”

But the article never takes that belief seriously as a matter of public concern. To the team at the New York Times, it is just a political perspective.

What must be explained is not the FBI’s agenda, but rather Trump’s behavior, which is interpreted in the light of past interest in “secret document[s]” like Obama’s birth certificate. No past examples of FBI abuses — such as the surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., under COINTELPRO — are examined.

The article cites a number of “experts,” some of whom are almost predictable, like Trump-hating former George W. Bush official Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor. But to those outside the Times‘ liberal bubble, there is no way to dress up what is a blatant partisan attack masquerading as journalism.

Ironically, the self-assured, conclusory tone of the article suggests that the team who worked on it may have no idea just how partisan they have become.

MEMO DESTROYS FAKE NEWS CLAIM TRUMP NEVER SPIED ON

Flashback: MSM said Trump was lying about surveillance claims

 | Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 2, 2018

The Nunes memo has discredited mainstream reporters who laughed at the president’s assertion that Trump Tower and his campaign were wiretapped.

Capture

In particular, CNN and the New York Times claimed the president was “lying” about his campaign being targeted for dragnet surveillance.

“Turns out, he was lying,” wrote CNN’s Chris Cillizza in Sept. 2017. “That’s the conclusion the Justice Department reached Friday night in a court filing; ‘Both FBI and NSD (National Security Division) confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets,’ the filing read.”

You mean the same FBI that left out the Clinton campaign’s role in the Peegate dossier that was used to obtain a warrant to wiretap Trump advisor Carter Page?

According to the Nunes memo released on Friday:

The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

And why would Cillizza expect the FBI to confirm the existence of a classified FISA warrant?

Then there’s this little gem from NY Times correspondent Matthew Rosenberg, who famously walked back the article he
co-wrote the Jan. 20 piece declaring “wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides” because the headline bolstered Trump’s assertion:

From the NY Times’ online version of the article (the headline of which avoided the word ‘wiretapped’ unlike the print version):

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

It appears that what was provided to the White House fueled the investigation into intelligence abuses, as documented by the memo Infowars highlighted on Jan. 23, which of course served as a roadmap for the Nunes memo.

*(THIS IS WHY THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AMERICA) – NYT CLINGS TO HOPE LEFTIST “RESISTANCE” WILL BRING DOWN TRUMP

Trump’s agenda continues moving forward, to the chagrin of the deep state

 | Infowars.com – DECEMBER 19, 2017

A op-ed columnist for The New York Times praised the numerous organizations coordinating the nationwide “resistance” to President Trump, arguing Trump has “done more to spur progressive political organizing than Bernie Sanders, George Soros and Saul Alinsky combined.”

Michelle Goldberg, a leftist columnist for The New York Times, gleefully recounted a series of “victories” earned by the nationwide resistance to President Trump, beginning with the citizens “coordinated by groups like Indivisible, MoveOn and the Working Families Party” who “flooded congressional town halls to demand that their representatives save the Affordable Care Act.”

Despite repeated efforts by conservative Republicans in both houses of Congress, measures repealing Obamacare repeatedly failed in the Senate in the face of unanimous opposition by Democrats along with a handful of Republicans.

The closer than expected special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional district to succeed Tom Price, who had resigned to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, was fueled by “the energy of the district’s previously apolitical suburban women” galvanized by their “disgust for Trump.”

Despite raising more than $23 million, Democrat Jon Ossoff was defeated by Republican Karen Handel in a loss deemed“demoralizing” by The New York Times, with Democrats “left to wonder if the intense anti-Trump passion visible in protests, marches, money and new volunteers isn’t just some theatrical, symbolic, abstract thing.”

According to Goldberg, the intense anti-Trump passion is not theatrical or abstract, as “Democrats have triumphed all over the country, as Trump’s approval rating keeps sinking.”

The so-called “progressive” (read Socialist) Working Families Party “endorsed 1,036 candidates in 2017” while “almost two-thirds of them won.”

“Inasmuch as Trump is able to force his agenda on an unwilling nation, it’s because of a breakdown in democracy that renders many members of Congress heedless of their own constituents,” she declared.

Goldberg’s suggestion does not hold weight when matched against a breakdown of the 2016 election result by Congressional district. If each Congressional district was represented by a person from the same party as the presidential candidate who won the district, Republicans would hold a majority of seats with 230, while Democrats would still be in the minority with 205 seats.

Despite the efforts of leftist organizations, their allies in the mainstream media, and the deep state to stop Trump’s agenda, he has continued to make progress, much to their chagrin.

“But while Trump has given his followers the liberal tears they crave, that victory contains the seeds of its own reversal. Trump has done more to spur progressive political organizing than Bernie Sanders, George Soros and Saul Alinsky combined,” Goldberg concluded. “The president once warned that if he fell, he’d take the entire Republican Party down with him. Thanks to the Resistance, he might still have the chance.”