Nicholas Kristof opposes fake news!

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016

Bold stance seems a bit fake:
In his latest column, Nicholas Kristof became the third New York Times journalist in recent weeks to deplore the rise in "fake news."

Make no mistake—fake news isn't good. Here's the way Kristof began:
KRISTOF (11/13/16): If you get your news from this newspaper or our rival mainstream news sources, there’s probably a lot you don’t know.

You may not realize that our Kenyan-born Muslim president was plotting to serve a third term as our illegitimate president, by allowing Hillary Clinton to win and then indicting her; Pope Francis’ endorsement of Donald Trump helped avert the election-rigging.

You perhaps didn’t know that Clinton is a Satan worshiper at the center of “an international child enslavement and sex ring.” Or that Chelsea Clinton isn’t Bill Clinton’s daughter, but a love child of Hillary’s by another man—or that Bill has his own love child with a black prostitute.

Oh, the scoops we miss here at The Times!

None of those items is actually true, of course, but all have been reported by alt-right or fake news websites (the line between them is sometimes blurred). And one takeaway from this astonishing presidential election is that fake news is gaining ground, empowering nuts and undermining our democracy.
Our view? A person can't have sufficient contempt for a high-minded fellow like Kristof.

For the record, fake news is very bad. We've been complaining about fake news, and the toleration of same, for almost two decades now.

That said, the New York Times has been inventing fake news for many years. It has also been ignoring fake news—averting its eyes from the many fake claims which have been unloaded on the public down through these many long years.

It has long averted its gaze from the purveyors of fake news. Powerful purveyors leave them scared. Lesser figures are too trivial for the great Times to acknowledge.

Earth to Kristof: the fake news about Bill Clinton's love child with the black prostitute has been fake news for decades. (Surely, Kristof knows this.) The Times had always averted its gaze from this sort of blight on the discourse. At various times, the paper was too busy pushing its own fake news, or lionizing sex accusers who had hauled in giant sums by pimping overt "fake news."

It's stunning to see a New York Times scribe complaining about "fake news." That said, Kristof is even prepared to name some big-asped names:
KRISTOF: Facebook has been a powerful platform to disseminate these lies. If people see many articles on their Facebook feed, shared by numerous conservative friends, all indicating that Hillary Clinton is about to be indicted for crimes she committed, they may believe it.

These sites were dubbed “alt-right” because they originally were an alternative to mainstream conservatism. Today they have morphed into the mainstream: After all, Steve Bannon, the head of Breitbart, one of these sites full of misinformation, ran Trump’s campaign.
Kristof is angry at Breitbart and Bannon—now. In early 2015, Kristof's newspaper formally partnered with the crazy book, Clinton Cash, which the crazy Breitbart site sponsored.

Cutting and pasting from Breitbart's droppings, the Times published a 4400-word "news report" about the scary uranium deal. The Times report was an absolute joke. It was one of the biggest pieces of "fake news" of the entire campaign.

(Still, it played a major role in the anti-Clinton narrative of the past several years. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes even called it "a bombshell report." Where do they find these kids?)

We think Macbeth may have said it best: "I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o'er."

It seems to us that Kristof's paper is similarly situated with respect to the era's fake news. This may explain why Kristof chooses to power ahead, ignoring the blood which has already been shed.

The New York Times was Trump before Trump. It was alt right before the alt right.

Both actively and passively, the Times has served as Bannon's trailblazer. Like so many others, Kristof is sunk so deep in this history that none of this truth can be told.

5 comments:

  1. Somerby thinks that fake news is a problem but he becomes upset when people who consume or believe fake news, because they are undereducated and don't know how to protect themselves from it, are called low information voters. He becomes upset when the lazy consumers of fake news are called out on their behavior -- because we are supposed to have empathy for them.

    If you permit anti-intellectualism by extolling the virtues of those who avoid the hard work of becoming educated, then fake news will flourish because there is no one who can tell the difference between the fake and real news.

    We aren't allowed to point out that most of those red state Trump supporters have lower levels of education than the blue state Clinton supporters, on average. We aren't even allowed to generalize because most people are educated about the same amount in both red and blue states.

    However, it is true that there is a brain drain that lures talented young people to colleges and jobs in urban areas and on the coasts. There they create centers of culture and research and business innovation that do not much benefits the rural areas (unless they watch TV). They create a subculture with different values, vocabulary and habits. Because they are more prosperous and less backward, it is natural that they look down on rural communities. I just don't see this as a great sin, or as anything new, or as unique to the USA.

    We need to educate the blighted in those red areas and bring the wonders of modern technology to them so they can have better lives. I don't think respecting them is going to accomplish much, especially if it means pretending they are not blighted and inflicting their blight on our political process. There is no virtue in being provincial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 4:24 PM,

      You obviously couldn't be bothered to read to the end of Somerby's post to find out what his point was (and by implication that a considerable number of the educated might be low information voters, themselves.) Here's what you missed, by oh, about 180 degrees:


      [QUOTE] Kristof is angry at Breitbart and Bannon—now. In early 2015, Kristof's newspaper formally partnered with the crazy book, Clinton Cash, which the crazy Breitbart site sponsored.

      Cutting and pasting from Breitbart's droppings, the Times published a 4400-word "news report" about the scary uranium deal. The Times report was an absolute joke. It was one of the biggest pieces of "fake news" of the entire campaign.

      (Still, it played a major role in the anti-Clinton narrative of the past several years. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes even called it "a bombshell report." Where do they find these kids?)...

      The New York Times was Trump before Trump. It was alt right before the alt right.

      Both actively and passively, the Times has served as Bannon's trailblazer. Like so many others, Kristof is sunk so deep in this history that none of this truth can be told. [END QUOTE]

      Delete
    2. Someone isn't low information for reading the NY Times, unless it is all they read. Educated people tend to read lots of stuff. Uneducated people don't read. It is why they are uneducated.

      Delete
    3. If I read as many books as most men do, I would be as dull-witted as they are.

      Delete
  2. Going back two days, I see Kristof left his hotel room door unlocked with his wife still asleep, all in the name of a cup of coffee, after which a lurking intruder got in behind him. Chaos ensued...

    ReplyDelete