The New York Times on Thursday published an opinion column by Regina Ip, the Hong Kong official widely denounced as “Beijing’s enforcer.” Ip declared “Hong Kong is part of China” and dismissed the protesters fighting for freedom in their city. I have no objection to the publishing of the column. Ip is a major figure in Hong Kong and, despite her support for authoritarian rule and crushing dissent, there is a value to having such views as part of the public debate. Rather, my concern is that the New York Times was denounced by many of us for its cringing apology after publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.). and promising not to publish future such columns. So it will not publish a column from a Republican senator on protests in the United States but it will publish columns from one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong.
Ip told Americans not to be sympathetic with the protesters being beaten and arrested as they fight for the most basic freedoms and human rights. She insists these inspiring protests as meaningless because it is the “destiny” of the protesters (and the city) to accept Communist Chinese rule. It is like publishing Emperor Palpatine’s op-ed declaring “Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the dark side.”
Ip declared. “No amount of outcry, condemnation or sanctions over the Chinese government’s purported encroachment in Hong Kong’s affairs will alter the fact that Hong Kong is part of China and that its destiny is intertwined with the mainland’s.”
Now compare that to the Cotton column that led to a mass protest from reporters and led to the forced resignation of the opinion editor.
The column by Cotton was discussing a statutory option used by presidents in the past in times of riot. He was arguing that troops could be used support insufficient law enforcement numbers. He stressed that his column concerns the violence not the protests. While I disagreed with the column, Cotton did not denounce the protests or the protesters. Rather than he objected to “a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.” In doing so, he not only cited the history of such use but cautioned that it should only be used temporarily to get hold of the situation:
“This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to ‘martial law’ or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to ‘protect each of them from domestic violence.’ Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder.”
I have repeatedly opposed such a move as unnecessary and inimical to the exercise of free speech. However, the column correctly recounted how the military has been used repeatedly by presidents to quell rioting and stabilize cities. However, the New York Times then bowed to the pressure of advocates and abandoned both its principles and the proud legacy of the paper. In a statement that will go done in journalistic infamy, the newspaper announced:
“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”
All of that because the newspaper published a historically correct account of a Republican senator on the use of military personnel to put down rioting. At the time New York Times reporter Jenna Wortham denounced publishing Cotton’s view because it put “Black @nytimes staffers in danger.” Instead, it is publishing a Chinese authoritarian leader dismissing protesters being crushed by her regime and proclaiming “Like it or not, Hong Kong is part of China.” Reporters are simply arrested by China and disappear into its extensive prison camp system.
The New York Times has succeeded in reducing its legendary opinion page to a mockery of hypocrisy. That is what happens when proving that you are woke is more important to being right. The right answer is to publish both columns as a newspaper committed to diversity of thought and expression.
The NYT is on a roll. Here is an Op Ed on what Joe Biden referred to as an Idea.
If that is not enough to convince you that there’s a method to the madness, check out the new report by Rutgers researchers that documents the “systematic, online mobilization of violence that was planned, coordinated (in real time) and celebrated by explicitly violent anarcho-socialist networks that rode on the coattails of peaceful protest,” according to its co-author Pamela Paresky. She said some anarchist social media accounts had grown 300-fold since May, to hundreds of thousands of followers.
https://archive.is/NZpJy
For all of you who like clues to solve “Murder on the Orient Express”, here’s a Lionel train set that might help. The Orient Express Passenger Set. A great Xmas gift.
“I hope he dies.”
– Zara Rahim, Hillary Clinton Spokesman
“It’s the [China], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
President Donald J. Trump will KICK A– AND TAKE NAMES.
Comrade Joe Biden will KISS A– AND TAKE BRIBES.
I heard Lebron James shacks up at her place when he’s in town….
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are taking off their masks.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) believe it is time to discard pretense, destroy America and formally impose the absolute dominion of global communism.
Communists seek the power inherent in the act of inflicting the principle of “…from each according to his ability, to each according to his need…” under the reign of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” including Central Planning (Fed/Treasury), Control of the Means of Production (regulation), Redistribution of Wealth (welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, SSI, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, Social Security, Medicare) and Social Engineering, (affirmative action, rent control, forced busing, quotas, unfair fair-housing, discriminatory non-discrimination).
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln commenced the nullification and destruction of American freedom.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) will now conclude it.
Turley makes a subtle and valid point. It’s true that publishing diverse opinions including those of various rival countries is useful information for readers, such as in this instance.
Equally true the NYT editors are full of garbage for the Cotton affair. And that is not only un-patriotic, it is BAD JOURNALISM
“It’s China, stupid!”
– James Carville (paraphrased)
The New Your Times has willfully converted its staff from learned adults with knowledge of Journalism, to a child playground. It has lost its glory in the world. No one who is serious about accurate news spends time reading the rag. Except by habit.
Hell, even an at-large editor of Wired Magazine (Levy) tried to get Dr.Fauci to admit that Trump was wrong about the China Coronavirus decisions his task force and he made. But Dr. Fauci was smarter than Stephen Levy!
This is such blatant hypocrisy that I’ve been trying to figure out what motivated the NYT to publish Ip and scrub Cotton. Is this a money move? Did they view Cotton as supporting a totalitarian move against peaceful protesters? Did they publish Ip to showcase what totalitarianism looks like, as a way to defend scrubbing the Cotton piece? It just doesn’t seem logical to conclude the NYT is promoting the CCP move in Hong Kong and opposing law and order in our own country. Are they really that deep in their hatred for President Trump that they would encourage burning this country to the ground and installing a radical left-wing government hell bent on making us function more like the CCP? Occam’s Razor anyone?
“THEY DESERVE IT!”
– Hu Xijin, Editor, Global Times, China State Run Media
___________________________________________
Trump and Melania ‘paid the price’: Chinese propaganda mocks president after COVID-19 diagnosis
The editor-in-chief of one of China’s state-run media outlets suggested that President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump “paid the price” by contracting the coronavirus.
The Trumps tested positive for the coronavirus late Thursday, according to a statement from the White House physician.
The Global Times, which has been widely panned as a purveyor of state-sponsored disinformation, is a tabloid published in both Chinese and English.
Shortly after President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump tested positive for the coronavirus early Friday morning, the editor-in-chief of one of China’s state-run media outlets tweeted to suggest they deserve it.
“President Trump and the first lady have paid the price for his gamble to play down the COVID-19,” Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin tweeted.
“The news shows the severity of the US’ pandemic situation,” Hu added. “It will impose a negative impact on the image of Trump and the US, and may also negatively affect his reelection.”
Trump was tested for the coronavirus after White House counselor Hope Hicks tested positive on Wednesday.
Hicks, a member of Trump’s inner circle, was with the president throughout his travels this week, including an Air Force One flight to debate with Democratic nominee Joe Biden on Tuesday.
“We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately,” Trump tweeted on Friday morning. “We will get through this TOGETHER!”
Hu has been a vocal critic of the Trump presidency, particularly as the coronavirus pandemic spread throughout the globe and after US-China relations hit a roadblock. The Global Times, which has been widely panned as a purveyor of state-sponsored disinformation, is a tabloid published in both Chinese and English.
The US State Department in June designated the Global Times and several other Chinese media outlets as foreign missions “controlled by the government.”
The State Department also limited the number of employees working for these Chinese media outlets in the US, citing “long-standing intimidation and harassment of journalists” in China.
The move prompted a retaliation from Beijing, which banned journalists from The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
– Business Insider, MSN
In chinese the pronunciation “Hong” means “king”. King Kong was a merchant who operated out of the area. It is named after him.
Kind of doubt that…The character for “emperor” that may possibly fit the local pronunciation is not used as a family name, and the actual character used in the place name means “fragrant”, so the translation of the name Hongkong is “fragrant harbor”
Fart Harbour.
Chris Wallace, on Fox News, says Cleveland Clinic staff asked everyone in the debate hall to wear masks. Biden’s family did, Trump’s family didn’t. When clinic staff offered Trump’s family masks, the family waved them away
Key issue in terms of spread and responsible behavior. Hicks apparently tested positive yesterday morning. After that positive test Trump traveled to New Jersey and interacted with as many as a hundred people.
Trump is showing symptoms of the novel coronavirus, but mild ones, including cold-like symptoms. At a fundraiser at his golf club at Bedminster, New Jersey last night, one attendee said the president came in contact with about 100 people & seemed lethargic
One of Biden’s front-row guests during the debate Tuesday night, whose father died of covid-19, was sharply critical of the president and his family for potentially putting others at risk in the debate hall.
Kristin Urquiza, co-founder of the group Marked by COVID, said that while everyone attending the debate had to test negative, they were also supposed to wear masks.
“And though every one of Biden’s guests managed to do this, Trump’s guests were shockingly barefaced,” she said in a statement.
“The Trump family exposed every attendee at the debate: guests, workers, Members of Congress, Secret Service agents, members of the media, and janitors to a deadly virus that has killed 205,000 Americans to date,” she said. “Irresponsible is an understatement: this is criminal.”
B-t-B
But.. but..
I don’t want to talk about the Chinese or the NYT.
Orangeman bad, let’s discuss again.
The TDS is really strong in you.
You must be a real bore to friends and family. Quick, run there he goes again.
“One of Biden’s front-row guests during the debate Tuesday night, whose father died of covid-19, was sharply critical of the president and his family for potentially putting others at risk in the debate hall.”
Someone very close to me was a victim of rape, does that create special moral authority for me to condemn Biden ?
Regardless, your guest seems to fail to grasp that life puts people at risk. That no one was at special risk at the debate hall. We all saw the debates – everyone was 12+ feet away from everyone else.
“Kristin Urquiza, co-founder of the group Marked by COVID, said that while everyone attending the debate had to test negative, they were also supposed to wear masks.”
So the EVEIDENCE is that no one was infected but STILL you demand even more virtue signalling.
Why do I care about Ms. Urquiza’s opinion ?
AGAIN as YOU point out everyone at the debate was REQUIRED to test negative.
“And though every one of Biden’s guests managed to do this,”
No, they just all engaged in virtue signalling.
Wallace was not masked,. Biden was not masked.
“Trump’s guests were shockingly barefaced,”
Be shocked if you want. But I am not required to be shocked because you are.
Regardless arguments are made with facts, logic, reason. Not emotional nonsense like “being shocked”
“The Trump family exposed every attendee at the debate: guests, workers, Members of Congress, Secret Service agents, members of the media, and janitors to a deadly virus that has killed 205,000 Americans to date,”
False statement – as YOU noted everyone at the debate had tested negative.
“Irresponsible is an understatement: this is criminal.”
Neither irresponsible nor criminal.
At some point those of you on the left are going to have to gather that we must move on – Covid or not.
We go to work each day – despite the possibility of dying in a car accident on the way to work.
2.7M people died last year.
Your core argument is that something bad is happening, therefore we MUST fix that.
Why do you presume that you know how to fix anything ?
Aren’t you among those who have been shilling this Collusion delusion nonsense for 4 years ?
Why should your judgement be trusted on anything ?
“Chris Wallace, on Fox News, says Cleveland Clinic staff asked everyone in the debate hall to wear masks.”
So ?
Is Chris Wallace God ?
“Biden’s family did, Trump’s family didn’t.”
So ?
“When clinic staff offered Trump’s family masks, the family waved them away”
So ?
“Key issue in terms of spread and responsible behavior.”
False – we have no known effective tools against the spread of a respiratory virus with a R0 between 2.4 and 3.8.
Virtue signaling is NOT a cure.
Absolutely the requirements of a political campaign – myriads of close encounters with strangers pose a risk.
Trump, Hicks, myriads of others choose that risk.
I wish them well. I do not blame them. But I and they understand that getting C19 is a risk that comes with the task.
It is mathematically certain that masks are not much more than a speed bump. It is entirely possible they are not even that.
The fact is we do not know – but the choices are not between some magical cure and certain death, but between a speed bump and possibly making things worse.
“Hicks apparently tested positive yesterday morning.”
Do you know ? If so state that with authority.
You are making a bogus argument with weasel words.
Your argument depends on whether Hicks ACTUALLY tested positive BEFORE interacting closely with others.
If Hicks was having symptoms OR tested positive, she should have self quarantined.
There is no authority moral or legal to force someone to do as you wish absent a REAL threat to others.
But where there is a real threat there is both moral and legal authority.
If as you claim Hicks interacted closely with many people AFTER she tested positive or AFTER she strongly suspected she was sick – that is WRONG.
But by using weasel words you have negated your own argument.
Did Hicks ACTUALLY test positive before interacting closely with others ?
Not aparently – but actually ?
Facts not supposition.
“After that positive test Trump traveled to New Jersey and interacted with as many as a hundred people.”
You have jumped from Hicks to Trump.
“Trump is showing symptoms of the novel coronavirus, but mild ones, including cold-like symptoms.”
And now you are time traveling. Trump has tested positive and is showing symptoms. Both within less than 24hrs.
“At a fundraiser at his golf club at Bedminster, New Jersey last night, one attendee said the president came in contact with about 100 people & seemed lethargic”
Again Time Traveling.
Biden seems lethargic ALL THE TIME – should he be barred from any interaction at all with anyone ?
BTW Chris Wallace’s debate performance was execrable.
There are no known instances of white supremacist or racist violence at Kenosha. There was LOTS of left wing rioting, looting and arson.
Though Wallace did not explicitly mention Kyle Rittenhouse he still defamed him. As Did Biden more explicitly later.
Whatever the “Proud Boys” are, they are neither white supremecists and they are not racists – they have black and hispanic members and a black cuban leader.
If Wallace and Biden are going to attack the group, they should atleast get their facts straight.
Further alot of us are perfectly happy to see militias or other groups confronting left wing nut arsonists and looters – if the police, mayor’s. governors, and government fail to do the job.
Protest all you want, when the rioting starts the protest is over and you can expect to face FORCE.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, but what about…
Once again, the NYT shows its true colors. Just as it hid coverage of the Holocaust.
They were for the filibuster before they were against it (which was after they were against it, which was after they were for it, etc)
The NY Times has been leaning left since in 1930’s … there is no famine in Russia
Is their a good word to be said for AG Sulzberger?
If his cousins want the family patrimony to be something sensible people trust, rely on, and admire, they need to take him out and replace him with a serious and decent human being.
One could see this as hypocrisy or simply printing the news; in this case the opinions of Ip. Or it could be Turley shilling for the right, Cotton, Trump, etc.
It is plain and clear hypocrisy. The only ideological core of the progressive left/democrat cultural phenomenon/abberation.
– more inevitability than aberration. It’s the kind of mess that happens when people are quick to folly and slow to thought.
Maybe you should read the article before making a comment.
Our noble host is really working hard to ignore the problem with the Cotton op-Ed. The piece was so detached from reality as to be nonsensical; even the title was absurd: Send in the cops? The ones who (at least in DC) used helicopter down-drafts, thousands of person hours, military equipment and advanced kettling tactics, all at taxpayer expense, to make the point that their budgets and techniques don’t need to be scrutinized? In DC the cops chased protesters around the city for hours, subtly outflanking them and pushing them into a neighborhood, finally surrounding them. Realizing they were outflanked and badly outnumbered, the protesters enacted the radical plan of knocking on people’s doors, and asking if they might come in for a bit of a warm-up. They were allowed and the stand-off was over, a complete nothingburger. So what were the cops there to do? Was the goal to prevent break ins and stealing? If so they didn’t do a very good job. A bunch of high end shops in Georgetown (miles away from the protests) got broken into, as well as a couple liquor stores downtown-ish. Were they there to arrest protesters? For what, and why? And why spend hours corralling them, presumably while listening to the reports of break-ins around the city? The entire police response has been all tactics and no strategy from jump street, accomplishing little more than demonstrating repeatedly and in cities and towns all over the country that police departments are expensive, over-equipped and under-trained. We got the message loud and clear. Send In the Cops, indeed.
Our noble host is really working hard to ignore the problem with the Cotton op-Ed. The piece was so detached from reality as to be nonsensical; even the title was absurd:
Thanks for the pose of knowledge. Always an education.
What the opinion of Ip is reality ?
Only in left wing nut world.
As to Cotton “Send in the cops”.
That is PRECISELY the purpose of government – to protect us by FORCE from those who are infringing on our rights.
Protest all you want. When you riot, loot, commit arson – we “send in the cops”.
You are not free to use violence and destruction to infringe on the rights of others.
When you do so there MUST be “men with guns” to step in an stop you.
Preferably the police. But when the police can not, will not or are prohibited from doing so then the national guard, and when that is not done – the military, and if that is not done then vigilantes.
It is not Cotton disconnected from reality – it is you.
Peacefully protest all you want. But when rioting starts “men with guns” will stop it – one way or the other.
It is unfortunate but looters, rioters, and arsonists tend to take cover – sometimes with unwitting protestors, and sometimes with complicit ones. regardless it happens.
We hope and pray and train our police to use FORCE to thwart those violating the rights of others, but not against those peacefully excercising their rights.
But the police are not perfect and the use of force with surgical precision is difficult. If you are in a protest that turns violent – it would be wise to leave. Otherwise you might get hurt. We all hope you do not, but we are not going to allow the violence, rioting, looting, arson to continue – the destruction and harm to continue, because you might get hurt by police trying to put down a riot.
If you want my sympathy – do not resort to violence or tolerate those who do.
I have no problem printing the opinion of Ip – nor does Turley.
And we all grasp that Ip is shilling for the CCP.
Why do you have a problem printing the opinion of Sen. Cotton ?
The opinions of Ip and Cotton are BOTH the news.
The true shame is that the Times itself sees no problem with the hypocrisy. The far left zealots who are now running the show there probably agree with the column by one of their own
“The true shame is that the Times itself sees no problem with the hypocrisy. ”
***********************
Hypocrites never do. Like Hannah Arendt said: “What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.”
Just permanently refer to the left as “the willfully ignorant”. It seems that is the only means they have to rebutt logic and truth before them.
Alma– I think there is an even more descriptive term that has been around since at least the Russian revolution if not before: “useful idiots.” I think that aptly describes all of those people who follow blindly whatever their “leaders” say. They are idiots because they have not an ounce of critical thinking capacity but they are useful because they vote.
So it will not publish a column from a Republican senator on protests in the United States but it will publish columns from one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong.
****************
It did publish a column from a Republican senator encouraging Trump to send federal law enforcement to protests in the United States.
Twice wrong. 1. It published the Cotton article, then retracted it, apologized for having published it, then forced the Op Ed “manager” to resign because his staff found the article disturbing. 2. Cotton did not “encourage … protests”; a complete mischaracterization. Cotton referred to riots, but only when local law enforcement was unable to protect its citizens.
Please read the article before you comment.
The Times didn’t retract Cotton’s article.
It apologized for publishing it without having the article go through the normal editing process.
Bennet resigned because he allowed it to be published without reading it.
Cotton wrote about both protests and rioters. Read it yourself.
False. The Article went through a more thorough vetting process than normal NYT articles – not only has Cotton confirmed that the NYT reviewed it thoroughly but that it massively fact checked it in ludicrously left wing fashion – you can not fact check and opinion.
Regardless, the point is ONCE AGAIN you misrepresent – the article WAS vetted, it WAS scrutinized, it WAS fact checked. It WAS read.
Finally it WAS far more truthful than anything by Ip.
If the violence of the left continues – ultimately that violence WILL be overcome by force.
The question is whether that will be by the police, the national guard, the army or by citizen’s militias.
Putting down the violent infringement on the rights of others – is not merely a legitimate role of government it is THE legitimate role of government.
The NYT needs bankruptcy protection. You know the moral kind.
mespo727272 needs bankruptcy protection. You know the moral kind.
Anonymous:
Yes, rank imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but copying another’s work still gets you an “F.”
You kinda remind me of this observation by Criss Jami: “Creative people are often found either disagreeable or intimidating by mediocrities.” I’ll let you figure out the subject of the sentence and the comparison found in the predicate.
But most people who are found either disagreeable or intimidating are not creative. Your reliance on affirming the consequent earns you an “F.”
Ano….
You are really sick. Take a vacation.
I’m not as sick as the people whose words I repeat, like mespo727272 and Allan.