While many media outlets are attempting to regain balance and to appeal to a broader audience, the New York Times is clearly not one of them. The newspaper is doubling down on the denials and deflections on the left after the latest political assassination. The newspaper is under attack for featuring the work of Hasan Piker, a writer who has called Jews “inbred pigs,” declared that the United States “deserved” 9-11, and screamed about killing capitalists.
The timing of the Piker column could not have been worse.
Just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was given a promotion by the University of Rhode Island after his remarks). While Loomis’ column was not on such violence, it stood in glaring contradiction to the newspaper’s pledge not to run Cotton’s editorials.
The New York Times is undeterred because its readers seem to value the very hypocrisy revealed in these controversies. They can rely on the Times to offer spins and deflections to relieve them of any self-examination after tragedies like the Kirk assassination.
I continue to oppose the censorship of individuals who, like Piker, espouse hateful views. Despite my friendship with Charlie, I have pushed back on calls to crackdown on anyone celebrating his murder (though there are cases where free speech is not a barrier to such action). However, the hypocrisy at the New York Times featuring such figures as Piker while barring others like Sen. Cotton is breathtaking.
The New York Times once represented the gold standard of journalism. The current editors and journalists have destroyed that legacy built on Adolph S. Ochs pledge to run “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Today it seems like the “Old Gray Lady” is offering more a “fit” than news.
Jonathan, In your up coming book, please publish two chapters on ‘The Powers Greater Than Free Speech’.
One Chapter on ‘The Good Powers Greater Than Free Speech”
and
One Chapter on ‘The Bad Powers Greater Than Free Speech”
-please.
The NYT is obviously the Tool of contentious rhetoric that eschews the Narratives of the inner Cabal. (i.e.: the NYT is/was John Brennen’s Blog for those that are the Overlords of the C.I.A.) The ‘ball of confusion’ the Media currently presents is a distraction, delusion, devise, … that is ultimately designed to server Them.
The Media is deliberately meant/used to ‘Daze and Confused’ the Populous in convoluted narrative until such time that the recipe has come to cure and the Populous awareness awakes in a solidarity (the purpose in ‘baked in’). In terms of the Cabal’s desires, this would be World War III. The War would bring about the sobering awareness of Focus (a National Solidarity of which Focus benefits the Cabal).
OLLY’s comment hit on this process yesterday: “Bezmenov’s warning about the 4 Stages of “Ideological Subversion”.
OLLY says: ~ September 15, 2025 at 1:48 PM
1. Demoralization
2. Destabilization
3. Crisis
4. Normalization
Media – In these ‘Times’ DON’T READ IT, it’s bad (physiological) Medicine.
Wrap your head around getting and being prepared for a War. Things are going to get: strict, tough, scarce, and vulnerable.
All this above simply said: We are being Used, and the NYT is a part of it.
JT says “the immediate impulse of the New York Times was to attack the man who was murdered for exercising his First Amendment rights.”
Wow, obfuscation much? They attacked him for “exercising his First Amendment rights”? Wow, how about just giving the facts of what Charlie Kirk has said? He has said many anti semitic things and anti black, brown, and woman quotes. No need to sugar quote what Charlie Kirk was. He was a provocateur. What did he actually believe? Who knows, I doubt his grieving widow even knew the real Charlie Kirk.
And how about that great $15 billion lawsuit against The NY Times by trump? Among the reasons? They endorsed Kamala Harris. Really, He is suing because they endorsed someone not named trump?
Yea, JT, The Times is the problem, not your fascist leader trump. Dream on.
“He has said many anti semitic things and anti black, brown, and woman quotes. No need to sugar quote what Charlie Kirk was. He was a provocateur.
You didn’t murder him because he was a Nazi, a racist, etc that you lied he was and as you’re continuing to lie here after he’s dead. You you lied he was those things knowing that one of you would eventually find that moral justification for planning and murdering him. Right in front of his wife and kids.
And the reason your lies are never accompanied by full quotes of what he said that would supply context and nuance is because if you did that rather than cherrypicking a few chosen words and spinning them, your lies would collapse.
The NY Times gives Hasan Piker a forum and the Oxford Union elects a mid wit juvenile to be the president even as he says he is fine with Kirk being murdered. BTW, this loser debated Kirk just a few months ago and today this champion of debate is happy his opponent was killed. The left is taking down institution after institution and they need to be outed for the radical morons that they truly are.
I saw a few minutes of this mid wit’s debate and it was filled with “like” this and “like” that and nonsensical debating points that should embarrass the Oxford Debating Society. Some trustees are resigning and there is a push on to remove this loser from the presidency. Hopefully they will succeed.
The west’s suicidal descent continues thanks to liberalism and cowardice.
NY Times delenda est!
“Despite my friendship with Charlie, I have pushed back on calls to crackdown on anyone celebrating his murder (though there are cases where free speech is not a barrier to such action).”
That reads like fence straddling? I believe you’re a good man and educator, you sound the bell on free speech attacks on good people but you give no answer for a remedy. If good does nothing and now any effort to stop good is in play what is your remedy?
As always, the remedy to evil speech is good speech. Once we start deciding what speech is acceptable and what speech must be suppressed, we stifle dissent. What’s the remedy for that?
@garyecq2k2 – Good has already been/is stifle dissent, shout downs, expulsion of conservative speakers from college, silence your opposition by any means, including murder? Is that the kind of dissent you mean?
Supporting Israel does not ipso facto mean one cannot make anti-Semitic statements.
Kirk absolutely has said in the past that Jews control X, Y, and Z through donors, which is a hackneyed anti-Semitic trope. This trope original yes with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: This fraudulent text, first published in 1903 in Russia, claimed to expose a Jewish plan for world domination by manipulating the economy and media. Though repeatedly proven to be a forgery, it became one of the most influential antisemitic texts in history.
Here’s an example, where he claims that Jews control, “not just the colleges; it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.”
In the clip, he also plays on another foundational anti-Semitic trope, Jewish Bolshevism. He baselessly, and without specifics, attributes “Jews” to “Marxism.” In the early 20th century, a related conspiracy theory spread that Jews were behind communism. Hitler embraced this, creating a false narrative that claimed Jews were trying to dominate the world through both capitalism and communism.
https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4013084
To be clear, one can debate at what point one’s repeated anti-Semitic comments makes that person an Anti-Semite. It may not rise to that level here, but Professor Turley’s article is dangerous in making the common – “If I support Israel, I’m not anti-Semitic” fallacy.
Any possible credibility you may have had drops to zero when Hitler is trotted out.
Ignoring history only makes you the fool.
Anonymous, thanks for posting Charlies opinion on Jewish loyalty to the Democratic Party. It is common knowledge what party the Jews have supported for decades. It’s obvious that Charlie is not speaking out of hate for the Jews but is rather saying to the Jews that it’s time to wake up to what the Democratic Party really is. The proof of my position can be seen in the defense of the horrific massacre of Jews by Hamas. From the river to the sea to Hamas means the killing of all Jews. The people who are spouting this phrase are on the left and are being encouraged by the leaders of the Democratic Party. Charlie was simply speaking a wake up call to the Jewish community to come to the realization that the party that they were once familiar with is not the same party today. I recommend that you listen to Allen Dershowitz (a Jew) on the change in Democratic policy. They were a friend to the Jew until they weren’t. Your twisting of the meaning of Charlie’s words is duly noted.
Thank you for posting the video. It totally contradicts everything you said, where are the references to Jewish and Marxism? He criticizes the ADL which has done much to be critical of and some american jews for their financial support to leftist causes, illegal immigration and institutions like colleges and universities which then turn on Jews which is also true.
No antisemite supports Israel and that is no fallacy.
I guess you didn’t watch the video? It’s only a couple of minutes.
Turley’ post is about a man embraced by The New York Times who has openly stated that Jews are inbred pigs. Instead of condemning the Times for this association you try to equate Charlie Kirks wake up call to the Jewish community as being the same thing that this Jew hater has said. You think we’re not smart enough to see it but we know a gloss over tactic when we see it. Not saying that his opinions are horrific simply means that you are defending the vile coming from his mouth. You try to paint Charlie Kirk as Anti-Semite when it is you who won’t condemn the words of a man who says Jews are pigs. You have made it glaringly apparent who the real Anti-Semite is here. Bigot be thy name.
You missed the point. In the video, he uses common tropes, like stating without evidence, that “Jews” control the media. It is important to understand such comments – even if unintentionally – in the greater context of our Jewish history.
Can you provide a timestamp? Because I watched the video and at no point did I hear him declare that “jews control the media” or anything even remotely close to that.
1:11 – the end:
“And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of de-coupling to do because Jewish donors have been the number 1 funding mechanism of radical, open border, Neo-Liberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews, and now it is coming for Jews, and they are like, “What on Earth happened?” And it is not just the colleges, it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, its Hollywood, it’s all of it. It is like time for you guys to wake up and say, “No more!” Draw a line in the sand. I don’t care if you hate me, I will not live through another Holocaust. I am not going to do it.”
Without evidence he groups all “secular Jews” – as responsible for controlling our government and our cultural institutions through their “funding.” He specifically links all “Jewish donors” to funding “quasi-Marxism” (which, as I noted above, is a anti-Semitic trope aka “Jewish Bolshevism”).
There is no way to back any of this drivel up with actual evidence. Even if you were able to identify Jewish “donors” as some sort of monolith, in which they are acting in concert, this hypothetical group cannot be deemed the “number 1 funding mechanism” for much of anything, let alone all of America’s policies and cultural life.
The false conspiracy narrative that Jews are global puppet masters who secretly control the media, the economy and powerful governments. In the 1920s, American industrialist Henry Ford brought The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which claimed to document the secret meeting of powerful Jews who were conspiring to take over the world, to the US, printed it first as a series of articles in his newspaper, and then in its entirety. It became the second-highest selling book beneath the Christian bible during that time. The Protocols became widely published, translated into 16 languages, and played a role in Nazi ideology. It still circulates today in white supremacist groups.
Terms like “Globalists,” “Cabal,” “The Cosmopolitan or Academic Elite” and “The Rothschilds” are antisemitic dog whistles associated with this tope.
Charlie Kirk had also endorsed “Great Replacement Theory” which is a conspiracy narrative originating in early-20th century French nationalism, but adopted and modified by the American white nationalist movement, which falsely accuses Jews of working to increase the number of non-white people who immigrate to the United States. Those who promote this claim – like Kirk- believe Jews secretly control policies that allow non-white immigrants into the US as part of a Jewish plan to outnumber and ultimately destroy the white race. You can see plenty of clips of Kirk endorsing this theory, but the reference to “open border” and “another Holocaust” in the above is certainly addressing Great Replacement.
Nothing I have recounted above should in any way be controversial – these are tropes that my people have endured for generations and will likely need to endure for generations more. You cannot deem someone an anti-Semite (or absolve someone of being an anti-Semite) based solely on their support of Israel’s current government. All I hope to do here is to help educate those, who are unfamiliar with these tropes, that they exist. I see plenty of folks on this blog who use these terms – because our leaders use them freely. And that is the problem. When you ignore history, it will be repeated.
I think you need to step back and look at this more objectively. He was talking about how liberal secular jews as a demographic have been in favor of the policies that have created the very antisemitic left that we have seen since the Oct 7th massacre. Kirk made a statement AGAINST anti-semitism and you have gone through an amazing mental gymnastics routine to declare that Kirk is the anti-semite. I’d be impressed if it wasn’t so despicable.
Before he was assassinated, I’d barely heard of Kirk and had never heard him speak. I had no interest. I’m not biased for or against him. I do not share his faith, nor am I a member of his party. I think you’ve been primed to hate him so you’re reading into everything he says looking for things to hate. Please, take a step back. The world is not out to get you. Ironically, you seem to believe in all sorts of strange conspiracy theories Maybe that’s why you think everyone else does, too?
When Kirk talks about another holocaust, he was talking about another holocaust of jews. He’s referring to the rabid anti-semitism we’re seeing all over the left these days. He’s talking about October 7th, he’s talking about the couple assassinated at the Isreali embassy, he’s talking about “globalize the intifada”. But you don’t see that. Because you were primed to believe he hated jews before you even heard him speak. So you twisted it all around to meet your preconceptions.
He didn’t say what you think he said. You have made three errors. You’re out!
Anonymous missed the part where The Times issued a retraction. That it got past the editors the first time tells us what The Times thought they could get away with. Are you waiting for a retraction by Anonymous the lover of from the river to the sea.
media-matters.
HAHAHAHA. A group of left-wing morons who never tell the truth
Did you actually watch the media matter clip? There wasn’t any jew-hate there at all. Nor did he declare that “jews” were controlling the media or any of that nonsense. He was stating that the ADL (a specific group), had been promoting the very thing that has been causing the rise in anti-semitism.
Every time I’ve looked into this, the left has been lying about this. It’s no different than when people say “He claimed jews are funding marxism!” and then you look at the source and the person said “George Soros is funding marxism”. They play this game where they declare any criticism or Soros or the ADL by the right is automatically anti-semitic. But when their favored groups declare their intention to commit genocide against the largest concentration of jews, then it has to be excused as a nuanced issue and only against that specific state and not jews everywhere (and ignore all those statements like globalize the intifada which specifically mean to target all jews everywhere).
“Kirk absolutely has said in the past that Jews control X, Y, and Z “
Charlie Kirk didn’t mean it in the way you implied. He acknowledges that although Jews make up a small minority, they exert a disproportionately large influence in many fields. For example, they are notably prominent among Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, showing their impact is not confined to just one area.
Charlie is a friend of Israel and Jews who happen to inexplicably vote Democrat. I’m Jewish, and the fact that so many Jews vote on the left is an embarrassment based on Jewish history. Most of those Jews don’t know their own history or what the Torah actually says. Sigmund Fraud (Anonymous) is one of those Jews. (You could be him.) He hasn’t yet learned how to think, but eventually he will learn when he is mugged by the Democrat Party. Look how Jews have reacted to Oct 7, and think about how they will act after Mandami is elected Mayor of NYC.
Take another look at your video. Media Matters isn’t careful, but it realizes that those who count on them for information are ignorant. By the way, who do you think is the biggest doner to Media Matters? George Soros, a Jew, is one of their big donors, out of pocket and through his web of 501c3s.
Again, whether one is a “friend of Israel” does not automatically make statements that are otherwise anti-Semitic no longer anti-Semitic.
He offers no evidence, nor specifics in arguing that all “Jewish donors” are responsible for Americas descent into “neo-liberal” yet “quasi-Marxist” (as is that made any sense whatsoever).
As a general rule, any time you claim that “all secular Jews” this or all “Jewish donors” that – you are probably drifting into the world of anti-Semitism. Much like any gross generalization, it unlikely to be true and is based on nothing other than one’s affiliation to the political group that is the subject of one’s ire.
Where Israel is concerned, double standards separate out the anti-semites.
When you use the word “you” in “you are probably drifting into the world of antisemitism” that seems to point to me. You might generalize a lot, but I don’t, and didn’t make any such generalization. You need to be clear when expressing your views.
“As a general rule, any time you claim that “all secular Jews”
He didn’t say that. As a rule, when someone twists words in your fashion and Jews are the subject, one has to wonder if you are one of those drifting into antisemitism.
The New York Times has always been a filthy opinion rag not a legitimate news source. This goes all the way back to Walter Duranty And his journalistic love affair with Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.
What a wholly ignorant opinion. Go back to 1950. And stay there.
Where is the summer of love style rioting by conservatives in the wake of this murder? That’s not who we are.
Get ready for the Leftards to label self-defense by two or more people a Right Wing Extremist riot.
There really is no point in trying to talk with them.
Jan 6, 2021 was more than 3 people, it was more than a riot. It was 100% right wing MAGA trump supporters.
” It was 100% right wing MAGA trump supporters.”
Firstly, it was a protest, where a small percentage became violent. There is good evidence that some of the violence was due to leftists and caused by political leaders of the left who refused troops and created an atmosphere that caused the Capitol Police to overreact.
Its coming. You old farts should finally step up do something. Instead you sit on this blog 27/7/365. Go sacrifice yourself for us.
Unlike you, we’re not part of a death cult.
There is a major distinction between, for example, the George Floyd and Charlie Kirk killings. Floyd was killed by a cop, a representative of govt. Kirk was killed, as far as we know, by a private citizen representing no one but himself. Obviously I am not saying the BLM rioting was just. I am only saying that protests against an alleged murder by a govt representative make sense, while in the case of Kirk who or what would we be protesting?
And Floyd was not killed in a political assassination, Kirk was. The rioting in Floyd’s case was political, and if the right was inclined toward death and destruction, we would see rioting now. But it is the left which constitutes a death cult, not the right.
in the case of Kirk who or what would we be protesting?
WTF do you think? A first-grader could answer that. He was assassinated in a political hit to suppress free speech, and to try and cower anyone with conservative values to not speak freely. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just a pot-stirrer?
Where are the video clips of Charlie being the right wing extremist that the lunatic left claims he was?
The whole idea of free speech is a leftist fantasy. What has free speech brought us? Disobedience to God, children disobeying parents, wives disobeying husbands and the disintegration of society, communism, porn, video games and crime. The kind of speech that enables these bad things is called hate speech. Anyone spewing hate speech needs to be imprisoned. Harsh, yes, but necessary.
^ False flag op. Ignore. ^
I know that silly Anon should be ignored but I can’t resist🤣
I hate you. I hate anyone that hates hate speech😡
Anonymous,
To your points about “Free speech”, Mark Levin once pointed out that, sadly, we have the seeds of our own destruction baked into the very system we have. Perhaps our so-called “free speech” is leading us down a very dark, dismal, destructive path?
John Adams, in an address to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11th, 1789, stated the following: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Unless, or until, we bring these values back to our nation, I fear we’ll continue on this downward trajectory.
Maybe Charlie Kirk’s death will be that “Turning Point” which gets us back on the straight and narrow path? We can only pray that it’s so.
Dear Mr. Turley, last Monday night into Tuesday morning I came down with a terrific headache and sore throat. So, I was at home on Wednesday and heard about Mr. Kirk’s assassination almost as soon as it had happened. This was a brave, young man who wasn’t afraid to debate cultural problems on the various college campuses. I am thankful for his life and what he stood for.
One of the good things that has emerged from this tragedy, to the discomfort of the progs, is that they cannot help but expose the putrid underbelly of what they have been hiding for so long. Now we see just who we are up against and I find these fiends far worse than any Nazi imagined in a post WWII movie.
Mama, it is like when we saw first hand what the teachers and their union are all about during covid and the insanity surrounding “drag queen reading hours”. Some of us understood what we are up against but now the general public sees how malign and evil the left truly are. Just today a court threw out the terrorism charge against Luigi Mangoni and the idiots were hugging in glee.
The left is sick and the Democrats are allowing their party to be taken over by them.
And where do we draw the line between the sick left and the dems? I think that line has disappeared and only the smart dems left to become either independents or repbulicans. The only ones left are the loons. I don’t think we should even sully the democrat name any longer when referring to these progressive tools. Just call them what they are; indoctrinated, power hungry sociopaths whose ends always justify their means.
I do hope this last week has shown the still doubting that we are in a perilous situation at this point in our history. We can either repulse this sick progressive/woke/socialist ideology of hating “the other” or we can go down with it. No matter what, that ideology eventually goes down, but it is our choice, alone, whether we go down with it. Time to pick a side and fight for it because the left will never stop – they are controlled by their ideology past the point of reason – I could imagine them killing 6 million or 20 million without a qualm in the name of their ideology – sort of reminds one of islamic jihadists – doesn’t it (think twin towers at this point).
I guess the people reading the NY Times have been doing it for quite awhile and are therefore in the habit. I, having been raised on the West coast have never read it. The more I hear I am glad. As a former contractor I cannot understand how any business can survive with so much mis information and articles that push divisiveness. If I had run my business like that I would not have had any clients. Word of mouth in the construction business is the gold standard. I guess like roofers there are so many houses that need roofs replaced that you can get away with the stuff they put out.
Your last sentence needs to be edited to read, “…Today it seems like the “Old Gray Lady” is offering more fits than news.” (not “…and news.”).
Spot on analysis Professor Turley!!
The New York Times once represented the gold standard of journalism.
Sorry Mr Turley.
The NY-slime has never been the gold std in journalism. since they supported the murdering by Stalin. .
Please shut up you ignorant puss.
A great example of the tolerant left. Anonymous, keep talking, you are doing a great job.
Did I hurt you’re feelings… to bad
The NYT’s updated motto: “All the news that fits the narrative”.
Actually its not.
The Biden Admin Smeared Charlie Kirk As A Violent Extremist — Now They Must Be Held Accountable
Biden DHS paid $40 MILLION on ‘Anti-Terrorism’ program comparing TPUSA, Heritage, Prager U to Nazis, using Antifa propaganda
The left strikes AGAIN!
The newspaper is under attack for featuring the work of Hasan Piker, a writer who has called Jews “inbred pigs,” declared that the United States “deserved” 9-11, and screamed about killing capitalists..
He must be the life of every party 🤮🤮🤮
So saving the world from Hawaii huh? Then jump of a cliff friend.
One thing about the left. HATE.. right Ano