NYT reporter calls 4 accurate articles “right wing misinformation.” Gets called out, admits they’re “factually accurate” … but says they’re still “misinformation.”

NYT reporter calls 4 accurate articles “right wing misinformation.” Gets called out, admits they’re “factually accurate” … but says they’re still “misinformation.” By Joel Abbott.

Nearly two years ago, the esteemed Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us that something can be factually false but morally true:

“I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” said AOC.

The statement rightfully drew widespread criticism. …  Even the Post called this “the slipperiest of slopes — the kind of attitude you can use to justify pretty much anything to yourself” (they then went on to slam Trump).

Today, however, one reporter at the New York Times has expressed the inverse of AOC’s statement: that something can be factually true but morally wrong and thus should be labeled “misinformation.”

John Hinderaker:

Yes, that’s right: every one of these Facebook posts links to a news story that is indisputably true.

  • A Republican in Michigan did go from loser to winner after a “technical glitch” was fixed.
  • Attorney General William Barr did authorize the Department of Justice to investigate voting irregularities.
  • Michigan’s legislature did hold an emergency session.
  • And Senators Perdue and Loeffler did call on Georgia’s Secretary of State to resign. …

At the New York Times, indisputable truth is “misinformation,” and must be denounced as such, if it doesn’t advance that newspaper’s political agenda. Truthful information, in Timesspeak, is what helps the Democratic Party. “Misinformation” is what could harm the Democratic Party. As, very often, the facts tend to do.

I have been saying for a while that the principal job of journalists these days is to block Americans from receiving information that they are better off (in the opinion of the Left) not knowing. Journalists don’t so much report the news as cover it up. This is an excellent example of that sick phenomenon.

Nowadays, the media’s self-appointed role is to only show information that helps the left. They rarely technically lie (by printing something presented as fact that they know is false), but they often lie by omission (by not mentioning pertinent information they’d rather you didn’t know).

Reporting went out of fashion in the 1980s, replaced by “journalism”. Media lockstep to exclude disagreeable facts from the public conversation began in 2005 in the US (see Journolist, and hurricane Katrina), and has since been copied in most other Anglosphere countries.

The media is now brazen. Hey, after successfully suppressing the Hunter-Biden-corruption story, they probably feel like information gods.