by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
Editors at the New York Post have harsh words for some counterparts within the Fourth Estate.
With the entire Russiagate affair exposes as a Clinton campaign fabrication, it’s the clear duty of The Washington Post and New York Times to give back the Pulitzers they won for “reporting” the fake news.
Clinton campaign cash ordered up the “Steele dossier,” with Democratic operatives providing some of the rumors and a cynical Russian exile asking buddies to supply rank speculation for the rest.
Other Clintonites actually hacked Trump computers, including White House ones after he took office, to create another smear, as Special Counsel John Durham’s latest filing revealed.
That’s all there ever was: A Team Clinton scheme to make her e-mail scandal look tame by comparison, and so win the 2016 election, followed by a longer drive to cripple the new president. It was a true “war on democracy,” abetted by the two papers in endless, breathless “reporting.”
Their Pulitzer awards say the papers “dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign.” Now everyone knows they only “dramatically furthered” a smear.
Show a shred of decency, and give your Pulitzers back.
Of course, in the case of New York Times, an interest in truth would mark a change in policy. After all, these are the same people who push the bogus “1619 Project” narrative.
Some people just don’t take correction well. The New York Times Magazine was rebuked two summers ago for the 1619 Project, an essay collection that proposed, as the Times itself announced, “to reframe American history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.” Now the magazine’s editor, Jake Silverstein, has doubled down on that in a new piece this week.
From the outset, the idea was not simply to broaden our understanding of America’s founding and history, but to replace it.