Donate
Photoshop by Dok Zoom

The New York Times is Grey Ladying itself all over the news again, and holy fuckballs are they making a sad hash of what could have been perfectly responsible journamalism. Like, the kind of journamalism that manages to tell the truth without equivocation or slant, but that also manages to be HONEST, for fuckssakes. Let's take a quick look at their latest bullshitty both-sides bullshit, shall we?


'Racially Tinged' My Taint.

In what might be a useful story had it not soft-pedaled one of its central points, the Times reported on suburban voters who might be a bit more inclined to vote for Republicans were it not for the party's decision to go full Hate Week on immigration and race in the final days of the campaign. Turning off people who might otherwise vote for the GOP is kind of a big story, you might think, but then we get to this mushy description of what's happening:

In Republican-leaning districts that include diverse populations or abut cities that do — from bulwarks of Sunbelt conservatism like Houston and Orange County, Calif., to the well-manicured bedroom communities outside Philadelphia and Minneapolis — the party is in danger of losing its House majority next week because Mr. Trump's racially-tinged nationalism has alienated these voters who once made up a dependable constituency.

Racially-tinged? Are GOP operatives distributing glasses that make everything look like Birth of a Nation? Later in the piece, while referencing Trump's Willie Horton 2: Latino Boogeyman ad, reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns do at least manage to say racist, but only while wearing their "some say" gloves to avoid seeming partisan. Or partisan-tinged:

The president amplified his fear-peddling Wednesday night with an online video that is being widely condemned as racist, showing a Mexican man convicted of killing two California deputies with a voice-over saying "Democrats let him into the country."

This would be the same ad that Fox News decided today is too racist for Fox News to run. At least as an ad -- once it's spread out into an entire season of Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, that shit's fine.

We suppose it would be too much to ask for the Times to actually call bigotry bigotry, so instead we'll have to settle for the knowledge that at least some potential GOP voters are finally finding all this overt racism a bit off-putting, unlike the rest of the time when they're fine with it being the unstated background of calls to be "tough on crime" and to "secure our borders." Now that they have their tax cuts, they may decide just to stay home or even vote for a Democrat, as long as there's no danger of another black guy becoming president.

Republican Ratfucking Sure Is Partisan!

Another NYT story this weekend provided a refreshingly straightforward attribution of who the baddies are, but then reflexively pulls back into fakey fake neutrality. Nothing inaccurate about this headline: "'They Don't Really Want Us to Vote': How Republicans Made It Harder" -- and no, that's not about mandatory coverage for Viagra prescriptions. The piece offers example after example of Republican-backed efforts to make voting harder for minorities and others who might be inclined to vote for Democrats. Hell, the piece even gets history right:

Limiting access to voting is rooted deep in American history, beginning with the founding fathers and peaking during the Jim Crow era in the South. But in the wake of the civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the idea that disenfranchising legitimate voters was unethical, and even un-American, gained traction.

No more. Almost two decades after the Bush v. Gore stalemate led to voting rules being viewed as key elements of election strategy, the issue is playing an extraordinary role in the midterm elections.

And why is this happening? Oh, easy: Maybe one party is doing it, but you know, it's all because of rising partisanship, plus a Supreme Court decision in which the Republican majority on the Court played no role the Times cares to mention:

Restrictions on voting, virtually all imposed by Republicans, reflect rising partisanship, societal shifts producing a more diverse America, and the weakening of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Nothing new here, of course: When the KKK used bombs to murder and terrorize blacks in Birmingham in 1963, very wise "moderates" condemned "extremists on both sides" -- both blacks who wanted to vote, and whites who murdered them for it.

Oh look, here is still more unhappiness about how "the political system in the US" -- not one party, mind you -- has become so very uncouth, this time from NYT's Maggie Haberman:

Gosh, but some people did yell at Sarah Sanders, so it really is the whole system, huh? If only everyone would just be nicer, it would be nice.

[NYT / NYT]

Yr Wonkette brings you the straight dope free from both-sides "civility" bullshit. Even Yr Dok Zoom is trying hard to be mean! Drop your subscription to the New York Times and send us the money instead!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Doktor Zoom

Doktor Zoom's real name is Marty Kelley, and he lives in the wilds of Boise, Idaho. He is not a medical doctor, but does have a real PhD in Rhetoric. You should definitely donate some money to this little mommyblog where he has finally found acceptance and cat pictures. He is on maternity leave until 2033. Here is his Twitter, also. His quest to avoid prolixity is not going so great.

Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc