Will The New York Times Tell Us About What It Learned About The World Coming To An End

() wisecatThis is what the NY Times wrote in a headline column on its website the other day: Some Donald Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Hillary Clinton Wins.”  

Now a few things are certain these days. One is that the NY Times and the Hillary Clinton Campaign team are barely distinguishable. Reading any article in the NY Times you have to assume first that it is being published to help Hillary Clinton and second that you have to scratch hard to see if in its pro-Clinton/anti-Trump manifestos there is any truth to what the headlines allege.

In this case those headlines are intended to scare people and to reaffirm what Hillary has said about Trump supporters being deplorables. Look, the headline shout, these people voting for Trump are planning an uprising. Its gullible readers think “Hillary’s right, if that’s what they are doing they are deplorable. Pass another crumpet.”

Since I’m talking of the Clintons I am reminded of the famous quote by the Clinton elder that you have to know what the definition of “is” is.  Here it would be nice to know what the definition of some is. Assuming about 130 million Americans will vote and Trump will get at least 60 million then how many of his voters do we need to suggest that “some” are warning of a revolution?

In my neighborhood Red the Ragman, a poor mentally disturbed guy who would pick rags out of the trash cans and sell them somewhere to someone only he seemed to know or kept them back in wherever he lived, often made pronouncements. One thing he also did was to support a certain candidate while saying nasty things about the other. If he supported Candidate Y against Candidate X he would come out with nonsense like saying if Candidate X got in “the world will come to an end.”

I assumed no responsible newspaper would have in its headline: “Some Candidate Y  Voters Warn the World Will Come To An End  if Candidate X wins.” So I read the NY Times article to see whether it was a responsible newspaper, in other words I wanted to know how many people of the many million voters for Trump it could name who were warning of a revolution.

The article started with a 25-year-old guy named Jared from Green Bay who worried a Clinton victory could lead to another Revolutionary War. For all we know he could be another Red the Ragman. Next was 75-year-old Roger a retired school teacher from Wisconsin. He says the country is divided and “I’m looking at revolution right now.”  

Julie, 69, from Colorado talked about going into a depression if Hillary won. Bill, 44, from Florida says if Hillary wins the election it is rigged. Rick, 58, from Florida says he would be shocked if Hillary wins. Richard, 48, from Florida says he is a man of peace but others “may take matters into their own hands.

Paul, 42, from Wisconsin say he owns “north of 30 guns” so if Hillary comes to take his guns (not if she is elected) there may be bloodshed. Alan, 62, a retired truck driver from Colorado Springs said he wasn’t going to go out with his guns to protest the election but if his neighborhood went up into flames because of riots like he saw in Ferguson or Charlotte he would use his guns to protect himself. (I can’t connect his statements to the subject at all.)

Ken, 69, of Florida said if Hillary were elected “I’d go home and cry for four years.” Kathy, 61, of North Carolina said her heart would be broken. Vicki 40, of Colorado worried that Hillary would be impeached but would pray for her.

There it is. No one said they would participate in a revolution. Only two mentioned the word revolution in the context of speculating what others may do. Most said they would not be happy.

The scare headlines talking about “some” of Trump voters warning of a revolution at best means two people. How does two equal some? How does what two people out of the more than half a hundred million voters suggest result in headline news.

Maybe next week if Red the Ragman and his buddy Joe Shlit who both support Hillary are interviewed by the NY Times we will be treated to a headline about some of Hillary’s voters are saying the world is coming to an end.

Come to think of it, if she gets in that might happen. ed would turn out to be a prophet after all. I should have been nicer to him.

 

 

13 thoughts on “Will The New York Times Tell Us About What It Learned About The World Coming To An End

  1. After the army, I was managing editor and paperboy for a weekly paper and used to joke that…. “all the news that Fitz we print.” I wrote ad copy for an advertiser called Fruitland offering “Come in and buy our prunes; we want to make you a regular customer.”…but looking at the Times and other papers today, I can honestly claim that little paper had far more journalistic integrity!

  2. “[The New York Times’] reaction to al-Zarqawi’s death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren’t any American flags at The New York Times.)” – Ann Coulter

  3. The New York Times has a long history of perpetuating lies and fostering liars. Walter Duranty, whose photo still disgraces the walls of the NYT, worked for the Times for a decade. As a Moscow correspondent he not only repeatedly denied famine was occurring in the Soviet Union, but he attacked a prominent British journalist who reported the facts. He called the Brit’s accurate story, “a big scare story.” Duranty wrote in 1933 at the height of the Famine in the Urkaine, while millions starved: “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine.” He described Stalin’s program of forced collectivization as simply “a mess” then made light of it: “But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” Stalin was making omelets.
    Malcolm Muggeridge called Duranty “the greatest liar” he’d known.
    The Times kept Duranty as a correspondent until 1941. Duranty’s photo, I’ve read, still is prominently displayed in the halls of the NYT.

    1. Bill:

      The NY Times and Duranty is a disgrace. The full story needs to be told over and over. Keep in mind in the 1930s there was a very large Jewish intellectual group who were attracted to the Communist party. They also would have had influence in the Times love affair with Uncle Joe the Murderer. I’d love to have the time to be able to research that. Sidney Hook wrote a book about that time and spelled a lot of it out.

  4. How can any American of Eastern European ancestry vote for a candidate endorsed by the NYT? They were the polemical arm of Stalin’s mass murder. They condoned and justified all his acts. Now the children of the victims should ignore this alliance and follow the NYT’s guidance? It would equate with an Irishman voting for Cromwell or a Jewish person supporting a Nazi.

    1. NC:

      I don’t know that anyone with that ancestry would vote for any of the candidates – isn’t it Trump who is friends with Putin who wants to gobble up all those Eastern European countries. Yes, the NYT is a disgrace but back in the 1930s it had a lot of Commie readers who had great influence in it and it did support Uncle Joe at least up until the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact.

  5. I am wondering if the writer of this website feels that the late 1960s and early to mid 1970s were a time of more turmoil than what we see happening in the world of 2016?I read an interesting book called Revolutions End about the Patty Hearst saga and it also included a lot of what happened in that era. This election has been beyond brutal and I do not think anyone will change their vote on what the latest news is from the FBI director.Thanks for taking the time to keep up this website.

    1. Norwood,
      Just curious……would the “anyone” you are referring to be “not” changing their vote from Hillary to Trump?
      So….is what you are saying is that all these charges against Hillary are “trumped” up and reasonable people (I suppose you think Hillary supporters) should stay the course and support the corrupt machine?

    2. Norwood:

      This election is pretty brutal in that both candidates are highly disliked. That has never happened before in American political history as far as I can tell. The turmoil outside is nothing compared to the happenings in the late 1960s where the Civil Rights Revolution and Women’s Revolution and Vietnam Protests where all flowing into each other bringing about the Black Panthers, Charles Manson,the Weathermen, May 1968 French student uprising, the Symbionise Liberation and Woostock type events – “don’t trust anyone over 30.”

      These days pale in comparison to those days. I’m not sure I agree with you about Comey. What seems like a nationwide sudden collapse in support for Hillary can be directly traced back to Comey’s reminder which has been reinforced by all sorts of lurid Clinton tales that one’s hair would stand on end believing all of them.

  6. The big difference I see and read on social media is that Trump supporters are very angry and hateful and bullying especially on twitter and Hillary supporters are well sad and depressed. Anger frightens many. Anger with guns frightens millions.

  7. this article appeared today

    written by a former FBI agent

    who is female.

    and Pope Francis announced today
    that women will never be allowed to be priests

    Former FBI Agent: The Bureau Has a Problem With Women
    Advocate.com
    As I’m a former special agent for the FBI, Comey’s action makes me want to … I was a young female agent in the 1980s, and one of the things I …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *