For nearly three years Americans were fed a constant diet of liberal establishment fake news about Donald Trump's campaign colluding with Russia. Wall to wall coverage, with many of their written stories having to be changed, retracted, corrected and in some cases totally deleted, which continued right up until the release of the special counsel's long-awaited report which determined there was no conspiring or coordination by any American citizen, including the Trump campaign, with Russia.
Faced with severely disappointed and angry readers and viewers who just had their last hope of negating the 2016 election buried under an avalanche of reality, the media needed to change gears to give their dwindling audience something else to be outraged about. The decision has now been made that "racism" will now replace "Russia" in their coverage, as evidenced by an internal "town hall" over at the New York Times, to which a recording was leaked to the leftist outlet Slate.
FROM RUSSIA TO RACISM - SPEARHEADED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES
The leaked recording, which was transcribed by Slate, is quite enlightening as to the mindset of not only Dean Baquet, the executive editor for the New York Times, but the obsession with the word "racism" by the staffers cited in the transcript that make it very clear they want to scream "racist" and "racism" more often and are upset that they are not allowed to.
It isn't often we at ANP recommend that readers visit a radically leftist website, but for those that want to read the entire transcript, it is over at Slate, the key portions that caught my eye are cited below.
At the start of Baquet's statement before taking questions from staffers, he states "We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," in reference to their Russia narrative they hammered for years.
Yes, Baquet is apparently very proud of pushing the Russian collusion hoax onto their readers for three years.
Then he makes his next point of how they need to pivot from Russia to create another narrative, stating "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story."
What is the new "story" Baquet wants the NYT to tell next?
It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred, but it is also a story that requires imaginative use of all our muscles to write about race and class in a deeper way than we have in years. In the coming weeks, we’ll be assigning some new people to politics who can offer different ways of looking at the world. We’ll also ask reporters to write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions. I really want your help in navigating this story.
Got that? The New York Times' executive editor has determined to make everything about "race," "class" and "divisions" rather than reporting new objectively. Predetermining the narrative for stories and events that haven't even occurred yet to look at them all with "racial" glasses.
To that end, Baquet boasts of the launch of the "1619 Project, the most ambitious examination of the legacy of slavery ever undertaken in [inaudible] newspaper, to try to understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump."
In other words, they want to rewrite history, and in the transcript of the leaked NYT meeting, in response to a question from a staffer that thinks "racial" reporting should be part of "our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting," Baquet made it clear that in order to "reframe our country's history" they have to "teach" their readers how to think.
I mean, one reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that. Race in the next year—and I think this is, to be frank, what I would hope you come away from this discussion with—race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story.
Is the word "propaganda" running through your minds right about now, dear readers? It is in mine.
Before opening the "town hall" up to questions from staffers, Baquet took employees to task for openly criticizing the paper on social media.
By the way, let’s catch our breath before tweeting stupid stuff or stuff that hurts the paper—or treats our own colleagues in a way that we would never treat them in person. It is painful to me personally, and it destabilizes the newsroom when our own staff tweets things they could never write in our own pages or when we attack each other on Twitter.
That is particularly amusing because one now has to wonder how peeved Baquet is right now knowing someone at that meeting actually leaked a recording of his plans to shape a future narrative to run away from the Russia collusion hoax to replace it with a narrative of race baiting hoax stories.
I would encourage all readers to read the entire transcript, especially the staffers questions, because it truly gives a first person view of how NYT reporters and other staffers think and feel, and the outright bias of the organization as whole, because they thought the discussion would stay internal, but now all of America can, and should, see them for who and what they are and what their agenda going forward is.
Suddenly, the New York Times discovers that there’s racists peddling hatred in the world. Scoop! Stop the presses! But it’s not simple racism, because the paper wouldn’t have to go further than Al Sharpton’s Harlem office (which he burned to avoid tax disclosures) to find that. No, this is about a Trump-led white supremacy, that every voter–all 62,984,828 of them–has joined as a complicit, if unaware, racist.
The NYT sees anyone defending Trump, or in the least bit friendly to him, his administration, his policies, or the parts of the federal government that aren’t against him, as their enemy. In other words, the people are their enemy.
DOES THE MEDIA'S OBSESSION WITH RACE MAKE THEM RACIST?
The media has been so busy screaming that Donald Trump and therefore his supporters are all "racist," yet as the Wall Street Journal rightly points out, that it isn't President Trump that is dividing the country by race, stating in their sub-header "He hardly mentions it, while his adversaries are obsessed with ‘whiteness’ and ‘white privilege.’" (WSJ is behind a paywall, so here is the arhcive.is link - scroll down for the article)
Long before the El Paso massacre, President Trump’s political opponents accused him of sowing “division” with his “racist language.” Mr. Trump “exploits race,” “uses race for his gain,” is engaged in a “racially divisive reprise” of his 2016 campaign, stokes “racial resentments,” and puts “race at the fore,” the New York Times has reported over the past several months.
Yet Mr. Trump rarely uses racial categories in his speech or his tweets. It is the media and Democratic leaders who routinely characterize individuals and groups by race and issue race-based denunciations of large parts of the American polity.
Some examples: “As race dominates the political conversation, 10 white Democratic candidates will take the stage” (the Washington Post); Mr. Trump’s rally audiences are “overwhelmingly white” (multiple sources); your son’s “whiteness is what protects him from not [sic] being shot” by the police ( Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ); white candidates need to be conscious of “white privilege” (South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg ); “white supremacy manifests itself” in the criminal-justice, immigration and health-care systems ( Sen. Cory Booker ); “ Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri” ( Sen. Elizabeth Warren ); whiteness is “the very core” of Mr. Trump’s power, whereas his “predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness” (Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic).
This brings up an excellent point about actual racism. Aren't those that continually focus on nothing but a person's "race," shaping all narratives around race, the real racists? If all they are looking at is the color of peoples skin rather than the debates, comments and criticisms against them irrespective of race, how is that not true racism?
The New York Times is definitely not a publication equipped with dealing with race issues as their own staffers, as well as their executive editor, is too obsessed with race, therefore too racist themselves, to be able to get anything about the issue correct.
A perfect example of what the radical left has become and how their constant screeching of the word racist is really to avoid looking into a mirror, comes from a discussion highlighted by Twitchy.
Some blue checked white guy called Sterling, and describes himself in his bio as a #feminist and LGBT supporter, stated "If you wear a #MAGA cap in public, I will definitely say, '#F*ckTrump and f*ck you'. I am DONE with racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted hate-mongers. This planet is on fire, and we don't have time to deal with YOUR sh*t."
Anthony Brian Logan, who happens to be a black popular YouTuber, responded with a picture of him, and a number of other African Americans wearing MAGA hats, and asked "We're racist?"
In response to Anthony, some random, liberal white woman, Laura Schlief, decided to chime in, saying "So you actively enjoy voting and going against your own self-interests? What exactly about this narcissistic madman white supremacist makes you want to side with him? REAL examples please. I’ll wait."
Anthony's response to her, made it quite clear who the true racist is by asking "Please, miss white lady, tell me what my interests are? Because I'm just some slow black guy and I don't know any better, right?"
Note - A look through Laura's feed shows she seems to have an unhealthy obsession with race herself.
The New York Times has decided lead the liberal establishment media from their Russia collusion hoax straight to race-based narratives regarding most of their "news," which will create more white radical liberal racists that think they have the right to determine what is best for actual people of color, to the point of demanding they explain themselves if they think differently.
The New York Times, along with their other media cohorts are bound and determined to create a race war.
EMERGENCY FUNDRAISER:Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.
So due to continuous attacks upon us and ongoing censorship, ANP is extending our emergency fundraiser through September. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: