Tag Archives: Media Corruption

Shadowy Far-Left Groups Are Behind the Effort to Silence Joe Rogan

Jordan Schachtel
February 1, 2022

Cancel culture has come for Joe Rogan, and The Dossier continues to uncover proof of powerful institutional support for the campaign to silence the enormously popular podcaster.

In The Dossier, we showed how very few individuals that signed the petition were in fact “doctors” or had qualified expertise in the field.

‘270 doctors’ called out Joe Rogan, but the authors of the letter and the vast majority of its signatories are not medical doctors

Are you seeing all of those blaring corporate press headlines targeting Joe Rogan this weekend, reporting on a letter from “270 doctors,” which described the famous podcaster as a “menace to public health”? Well, it turns out that the real arbiters of misinformation are the individuals behind the letter itself, and they are being helped along by a corrupt corporate media that is misreporting the credentials of its signatories.

Unsurprisingly, Spotify chose its star podcaster, but pledged to do more to “combat misinformation.”

In reporting that the vast majority of “doctors” behind the anti-Rogan letter were not in fact medical doctors, The Dossier found:

“Paradoxically, the disseminators of this petition are guilty of the very misinformation label that they’ve attached to Rogan. In fact, neither of the two reported co authors of the letter — Jessica Rivera and Ben Rein — possess medical degrees. Rivera holds a master’s degree and Rein is a PhD academic who researches psychiatry.”

Rivera is currently the science communication lead with the Pandemic Prevention Institute, a project of the far-left Rockefeller Foundation. She was previously associated with The Atlantic’s COVID-19 Tracking Project, a now defunct endeavor that was funded by Mark Zuckerberg, the Rockefeller Foundation, among other far-left institutions.

Rivera, who has accused Joe Rogan of spreading misinformation about mRNA shots, has spread plenty of misinformation about COVID-19 herself, including the pseudoscientific claim that vaccine-induced immunity is better than natural immunity.

And now, Rolling Stone, which got the scoop of the initial story on the group of “medical experts” who are trying to cancel Joe Rogan, has unveiled two additional co-authors in their latest report: “‘More Spectacle Than Substance’: Spotify Response to Joe Rogan Controversy Leaves Researchers Shrugging.”

In short, the cancelers are not settling for Spotify’s newfound push to “combat misinformation.” They still want Spotify to fully censor Rogan.

In the piece, Rolling Stone provides more intel to readers on the petition that generated endless sensational headlines. Key additional players in disseminating the petition are supposed “experts” in the form of a “Dr” Katrine Wallace and a college student and TikToker named Abbie Richards.

Katrine Wallace, despite not being a medical doctor, goes by “Dr Kat.” Rolling Stone, in its continuation of the campaign to silence Rogan, was happy to accommodate her request, violating AP journalistic standards in referring to Wallace as “Dr Katrine Wallace.”

Wallace holds a PhD in epidemiology and is currently an adjunct assistant professor in Illinois. She has no background in vaccines or any relevant fields related to COVID-19. A brief overview of her published work finds that it largely involves publishing research papers on the urinary tract. Per Google Scholar, she has spent the COVID years publishing academic papers almost exclusively about prostate cancer and ovarian cancer.

Far from being a communicator of complete scientific truths, Wallace has spread plenty of her own misinformation on mRNA vaccines. She has claimed that individuals have a 90% decreased risk of infection from the shots. She has also suggested that COVID injections prevent the infection entirely. We now know neither claim is remotely true.

Rolling Stone describes fellow campaigner Abbie Richards as a “a misinformation researcher who helped organize the efforts to write the letter.” However, they did not bother to mention that Richards is a consultant with Media Matters, a notorious far-left dark money-funded outfit that operates solely to attempt to silence their political opposition.

Richards has previously participated in a Media Matters campaign to cancel Tucker Carlson, who she has labeled a “white supremacist.”

According to her biography, Richards, a media-labeled “medical expert,” is working on an online master’s degree in “climate studies.” She is also affiliated with a new left wing group called the Accelerationism Research Consortium, which was created to study the “threat of insurrectionary accelerationism,” which is academic jargon for “all right wingers — and especially Trump supporters — are potential terrorists, or something.”

We’ve now identified 4 named organizers behind the letter. None are actual “medical experts,” and two are directly affiliated with far-left institutions that have long been known for waging cancel culture censorship campaigns.

Crisis in Journalism: 50+ Questions No Reporter Dares Ask Joe Biden And His Campaign

Jordan Davidson
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden doesn’t face the same scrutiny the media applies to President Trump. Whether it is due to gaffes, his inability to complete some sentences, or lack of knowledge on a subject, Biden has proven that interviews are not for him and the media has covered accordingly.

When Biden actually agrees to an interview or offers to take questions, most reporters simply ask leading, softball questions or merely state something for Biden to nod in agreement with. Many times, Biden refuses to take questions altogether.

If Biden ever decides to take questions from the press again, here’s a list of questions reporters wouldn’t dare ask him and his campaign for fear of risking their esteemed reputations as some of the loudest voices for Democrats.

On COVID

How do you plan on enforcing a national mask mandate if you are elected? Should states that abide by your national mask mandate use police to enforce it? Won’t that necessarily create more interactions with cops at a time of tension?

Given its outsized role in the numbers of virus deaths in America, should there be a federal investigation into why New York patients were forced into nursing homes by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s policy directive?

On Media

Why do you perpetually fail to take questions from reporters at your minimal number of press conferences?

Does your administration have any plans to address the censorship by big tech companies of conservative media and voices?

On Kamala Harris

VP pick Kamala Harris said she believed the women who accused you of sexual assault, but Biden denied their allegations. Has Harris changed her position on supporting potential victims of sexual assault?

Why is Harris bailing out rioters, including those who are suspected of shooting at police, murdering a friend, and a convicted sex offender?

On Rioting And Violence

Will you ever directly condemn Antifa and the Black Lives Matter rioters as the cause for the violence ripping through the nation’s cities?

Would you allow the National Guard into cities like Portland that have seen 100 days of violence, rioting, and even death?

What, if anything, can be done to stop the epidemic of violence in Chicago and other cities? Have their Democrat leaders failed the citizens there?

On Foreign Policy

You have repeatedly claimed that you moved into opposition against the Iraq War, which you championed as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, soon after it began. Yet in 2003 and 2004 you didn’t utter a word of criticism of the war –it took until 2005 for you to change your stance. In July 2003 you called your vote the right vote then, and the right vote today. Why are you lying about your record on Iraq? How do you justify previously supporting and enabling the Iraq War? What effect will that have on your foreign policy agenda if you are elected president? How can we trust you will not lead us into another similar war in the future?

If elected, how do you plan on addressing the rising threat of China concerning intellectual property theft as well as their human rights violations?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was recently asked whether he would reconsider his remark that you have been wrong about nearly every major foreign policy and national security decision of the past 40 years. He declined. You can’t both be right. Why is he wrong?

You have publicly supported China’s one-child policy. According to numerous eyewitness reports and documentaries, this policy has forced women to be held down against their will, screaming, while their children were yanked from their wombs and ripped apart. Please explain how you can support this policy, as well as its American counterpart in abortion on demand, while still saying it is Donald Trump who is a morally unfit leader.

On Guns

In 2013 you suggested that people, especially women, acquire a shotgun for self-defense over an AR-15 because ARs are “harder to aim, harder to use.” Have you ever shot an AR?

You have expressed interest in banning the AR-15, but would you be in favor of banning all semiautomatic rifles? If not, why not?

How would such bans be enforced given the popularity of such guns? Who would compel American citizens to hand them over — the police?

On Sports

Should college sports come back this fall? If a vaccine is in place, how long would we need to wait to see if college sports can resume?

You recently praised NBA players for “moral leadership” and “using their platform for good” but have not acknowledged that they violated their contracts to protest the shooting of a man with an outstanding warrant accused of sexually and physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend. What are your thoughts on the morality of physical and sexual assault?

On Education

Data shows childhood development is dramatically harmed by online learning, but children have very little likelihood of harm from the coronavirus. Why would you force them to learn online?

Democrats claim they want more women in the workforce and more women advancing into high-level positions. How does forcing women to stay home to homeschool their children accomplish this goal?

On Women

The current data shows that working women have been disproportionately hurt in their careers and incomes by coronavirus shutdowns. How can you support such shutdowns and say you are pro-woman?

On Nancy Pelosi

The speaker of the House was recently seen violating local COVID-19 mandates to get her hair done without a mask at a San Francisco salon. Other Democratic leaders have also violated COVID-19 regulations to keep their comfort. What are your thoughts on leaders who don’t follow the rules that they create, encourage, and condemn others for not following?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she doesn’t believe you should participate in debates with President Trump, accusing him of trying to “undermine the elections” and disrespecting “the democratic process.” Do you believe that participating in debates where you can each share your opinions free of regulation or limitation violates these concepts?

On The Economy And Taxes

Would your plan to increase taxes hurt the economy’s recovery after the COVID-19 crisis?

You promised on the campaign trail in 2008 that the Obama-Biden administration would never raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 a year. Virtually every fact-checker including the left-leaning PolitiFact says you broke that promise. Why should we believe you when you now promise that no household making under 400,000 a year will get a tax hike?

The trustees for the nation’s entitlement programs say they are insolvent and will begin lacking the funds to pay out their obligations within just a few years. How do you propose to fix this problem?

Your answers to many problems are raising taxes “on the wealthy.” The nation’s top 10 percent reported a cumulative income of nearly $5 trillion in 2016. That’s every penny they earned in that year. It is enough to fund the federal government for one year currently, with a bit of change. How is it mathematically possible to pay for additional tens of trillions of dollars in federal spending without either literally enslaving the rich or raising taxes dramatically on everyone — especially when we already have more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for existing programs?

On Abortion

You reversed your long-held position to say you’re now in favor of taxpayer funding for abortions. What changed your mind about funding abortions?

How do you reconcile your Catholic faith and teachings with your pro-abortion stance?

Democrats in states like New York have passed laws effectively allowing abortions up until birth. Should taxpayers fund such abortions, particularly for poor women who can’t afford them?

Campaigning in South Carolina, you suggested that it would be a good thing for the United States to help fund abortions for women in poor countries to discourage overpopulation. Do you plan to use taxpayer dollars in this effort, and if so, what countries do you plan to target?

On The Environment

You have previously said you want to ban fracking but then claimed that Trump was lying about your position. Why is it a lie to say you want to ban fracking, when you said repeatedly you would ban or get rid of it?

You have publicly stated that climate change is a national and global emergency. Does its urgency outpace the coronavirus? If so, would shutting down the entire nation indefinitely be justified to also address climate change?

You and your campaign website have repeatedly warned of “increasingly intense hurricanes” and natural disasters due to climate change. According to NYT bestselling author and climate activist Michael Shellenberger, “hurricanes aren’t increasing in frequency,” and data shows that “deaths from natural disasters are at their lowest point in 120 years.” Why is your campaign making inaccurate claims about climate, and do you plan to correct them?

On Donald Trump

What if anything did you say to encourage the surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign and associates before you departed the White House in 2009?

What is your plan to prosecute the corruption found inside the FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice’s top leadership to frame a Republican presidential candidate for treason?

On Democratic Leadership

Is Bill De Blasio a good mayor?

Is Ted Wheeler a good mayor?

Is Lori Lightfoot a good mayor?

Is Andrew Cuomo a good governor?

On Racism

Please explain to me how it is non-racist to tell black people they’re not black if they don’t vote Democrat.

Is the United States a fundamentally racist nation? Is it institutionally racist?

Do you regret saying that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan intended to put black people “back in chains” in 2012?

On the Obama Administration

What did you know, and when did you know it, about the Obama administration’s weaponization of secret spy powers to undermine an election and illegally surveil Democrats’ political enemies?

On Immigration

Do you believe American taxpayers should pay the expenses of foreign citizens who illegally enter the United States, such as for food, health care, and education? Since the entire world has a lower standard of living than Americans do, why will that not encourage everyone who can to get inside our borders?

Should there be any criteria applied to those who seek U.S. citizenship? If so, what?

On America

What would you say are the top problems America faces today? In the next decade? In the next 50 years?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

New York Times Manipulates FBI Lawyer’s Guilty Plea To Hide Real Spygate News

Mollie Hemingway
AUGUST 17, 2020

A New York Times reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his role perpetrating the Russia collusion hoax was tasked with framing the news that a former top FBI lawyer was to plead guilty to deliberately fabricating evidence against a Donald Trump campaign affiliate targeted in the Russia probe. The resulting article is a case study in how to write propaganda.

Adam Goldman broke, and cushioned, the news that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was to plead guilty to fabricating evidence in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application to spy on Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page.

His job was to present the news as something other than an indictment of the FBI’s handling of the Russia collusion hoax, to signal to other media that they should move on from the story as quickly as possible, and to hide his own newspaper’s multi-year participation in the Russia collusion hoax. One intelligence source described it as an “insult” to his intelligence and “beyond Pravda,” a reference to the official newspaper of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Here’s how Goldman did it.

Mild Headline With Ludicrous Spin

The New York Times used to put every Russia collusion story it had on the front page. Then, when the narrative fell apart, the Times moved on to a new narrative of redefining America as irredeemably racist.

Even though Clinesmith’s guilty plea is directly relevant to the false story the Times peddled for years, and even though it broke the news of his guilty plea, the publication hid the story deep in the paper and put a boring headline on it. “Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Durham Investigation,” as if begging readers to move on. If they didn’t, the subhead told them that the news really wasn’t such a big deal. “Prosecutors are not expected to reveal any evidence of a broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials,” it claimed, without, well, evidence.

In fact, while the charging document was brief, it revealed that while Clinesmith deliberately fabricated evidence in the fourth warrant to spy on Page, all four warrants failed to mention the information the CIA gave the FBI months before the first warrant was filed. That information was that Page, a former Marine officer who graduated from the Naval Academy, had been a source for the agency, sharing information about Russians the agency was interested in. In fact, he’d done it for five years.

All four warrants took those contacts as probable cause to spy on him, so the CIA’s information would have significantly altered the applications if included.

Downplays Robert Mueller Ties

Goldman describes Clinesmith as someone “who was assigned to the Russia investigation,” avoiding any mention of his role on the “Mueller probe” until the 24th paragraph. The Mueller probe is the name given to the special counsel investigation ostensibly led by Robert Mueller but actually led by rabid partisan Andrew Weissmann.

Clinesmith was removed from the Russia collusion investigation not for falsifying evidence but for his extreme anti-Trump texts. Those were found when Inspector General Michael Horowitz investigated the FBI’s gentle treatment of Hillary Clinton when she was facing scrutiny for mishandling classified information.

“I’m just devastated,” Clinesmith texted to FBI attorney Sally Moyer shortly after Trump won the 2016 presidential election. “Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff,” Clinesmith wrote.

“Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?” Moyer later asked Clinesmith, apparently referring to Clinesmith’s plan to remain at the FBI.

“Hell no,” Clinesmith responded. “Viva le resistance.”

Assertions Without Evidence

Goldman claims, without evidence, that Trump “has long been blunt about seeing the continuing investigation by the prosecutor examining the earlier inquiry, John H. Durham, as political payback.” In fact, Trump has said that no president should go through what he went through: the weaponization of a political opponent’s conspiracy theory to undermine a duly elected president.

Still Peddling Russia Claims

“Attorney General William P. Barr has portrayed Mr. Durham’s work as rectifying what he sees as injustices by officials who sought in 2016 to understand links between the Trump campaign and Russia’s covert operation to interfere in the election,” Goldman writes, failing to inform his readers that there were no such “links.”

Evidence Of Broader Conspiracy

As in the headline, Goldman highlights his view that “prosecutors were not expected to reveal any evidence in charging documents that show Mr. Clinesmith’s actions were part of any broader conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump.” Beyond the fact that the very brief charging document actually does get at problems that extend beyond Clinesmith, the lack of an outline of such evidence doesn’t mean the prosecutors don’t have it, just that they didn’t put it in this document.

Perhaps Clinesmith’s plea involved his assistance in laying out this evidence, or perhaps the information was unnecessary, or perhaps it simply wasn’t shared with Clinesmith or his attorney who are the obvious source candidates for the article.

Factual But Not Truthful

The corporate media are “factual but not truthful,” says critic Michael Malice. A good example of that is when Goldman picks out the two least salient pieces of information from the inspector general’s investigation of FISA abuse to claim that actually the FBI did a good job. This was the report that found 17 egregious errors, inaccuracies, and problems in the applications to spy on Page.

Goldman saves his mention of that for the 14th paragraph of his article, instead saying, “And the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has found that law enforcement officials had sufficient reason to open the Russia investigation, known inside the F.B.I. as Crossfire Hurricane, and found no evidence that they acted with political bias.”

He leaves out that Horowitz also said he found the FBI officials’ “we weren’t politically biased” claims to be insufficient and unsatisfactory explanations for how all of the egregious problems happened. And before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Horowitz testified that questions of political bias get “murkier” once you get past the opening of the probe.

More Anonymous Sourcing

Goldman grants Clinesmith or his attorneys anonymity to say that “his motives were benign, and other evidence indicated that he had not tried to hide the C.I.A. email from his colleagues.”

First off, this is a really cute way to elide the inspector general’s finding that Clinesmith didn’t just fabricate evidence in the email from the CIA, he also hid his initial email to the CIA, which provided much-needed context for understanding the CIA’s response. But also, what is the justification for Goldman to give the anonymity for making this claim?

Clinesmith or his attorneys are not leaking classified information here. Is the Times willing to grant anonymity to anyone and thus relieve them of the responsibility of their own statements so long as the Times approves of what they’re saying?

Anonymous Leaks Good, Accountable Public Statements Bad

Goldman, who for years regurgitated anonymous leaks to spread the false and dangerous Russia collusion hoax, writes of Barr mentioning that there would be a development in the Durham probe: “It is highly unusual for law enforcement officials to publicly discuss ongoing investigations, but Mr. Barr has long made clear his distaste for the Russia investigation and his view that Mr. Durham would remedy any issues with it.”

In other words, Goldman is opining that it is better to anonymously leak false information like the FBI and Weissmann teams did for three years rather than make mild and accurate statements in a public and straightforward manner. Got it.

We Never Cared About Collusion

The entire reason the Russia collusion hoax gripped the nation for years was because of the conspiracy theory that Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Thousands of news stories appeared through this period suggesting myriad, concrete Trump campaign linkages to Russia.”

But once Weissmann was unable to find any collusion, the media simply dropped the claim that they had pushed for years. Now Goldman, who won a Pulitzer for pushing the claim, describes the Mueller probe as something that “uncovered the Kremlin’s complex operation to subvert the election and the Trump campaign’s expectation that it would benefit from foreign involvement.”

He hides the fact that Weissmann failed to find any evidence that Trump team colluded with Russia, which was the core allegation being investigated but has suddenly become so irrelevant that he doesn’t find it necessary to mention it while summing up the Mueller probe. Poof, it just disappeared.

Downplaying FISA Abuse

The 434-page Horowitz report identified major abuses by the FBI that violated Page’s civil liberties. The corporate media used to present itself as an institution that cared about protecting individual freedoms from abuse by unaccountable government. The IG report lists the threat to the First Amendment and “constitutionally protected activity” nearly 20 times.

Here’s how Goldman puts it: “Republicans have seized on a narrow aspect of the inquiry — the investigation into Mr. Page — in a long-running quest to undermine it.”

This is propaganda. FISA abuse was never a “narrow aspect” of the inquiry and everyone should have “seized” on it because lying to a FISA court and violating an American’s civil liberties are evil. For Goldman to opine the motivations of his political opponents is beyond his capabilities. Also, he should know that Republicans couldn’t “undermine” the investigation at this point if they tried, since it ended a long time ago.

Good-Faith Document Tampering

The CIA repeatedly told the FBI that Page was a source. Clinesmith told a supervisor Page wasn’t a source, despite what he was told by the CIA. He was asked by the supervisor to provide documentation supporting that claim, at which point he doctored an email so it said Page was “never a source.”

Here’s how Goldman spins this: “Mr. Clinesmith did not change the document in an attempt to cover up the F.B.I.’s mistake, the people familiar with the case said. His lawyers argued that he had made the change in good faith because he did not think that Mr. Page had been an actual source for the C.I.A.”

That sounds very believable and Goldman is a good reporter for not having any skepticism at all toward the claim.

Hiding The Dossier

The New York Times used to trumpet the “Steele dossier,” a collection of memos bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign alleging Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia. Page featured prominently in the dossier.

Recently it was confirmed that, far from the descriptions in the media, the dossier was just the collected gossip and drunken brainstorming of an American-based researcher and his school chums that were then exaggerated by Steele. Goldman himself was part of a reporting team that described Steele as “an expert on Russia who is well respected in the spy world,” adding that he was “considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia.”

Goldman and his colleagues praised Steele as having “an excellent reputation with American and British intelligence colleagues and had done work for the F.B.I. on the investigation of bribery at FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. Colleagues say he was acutely aware of the danger he and his associates were being fed Russian disinformation.”

It turned out that the FIFA talking point wasn’t true. Steele’s prior handling agent at the bureau told Inspector General Horowitz that he would have never approved such a description of Steele’s work, since most of his prior work had not been corroborated and none of it had ever been used in criminal proceedings.

As for his “acute” awareness of the danger of being fed Russian disinformation, that was also not true. Horowitz found that Steele was an agent of “Russian Oligarch 1,” a reference to Oleg Deripaska, and that he was in frequent contact with agents of Russian oligarchs.

Had the FBI been properly informed that Steele was working both for the Clinton-funded operation and the Russian oligarch, they said they would have been much more sensitive to the possibility his entire operation was related to Russian disinformation. Also, Steele’s two most explosive claims — about Michael Cohen being in Prague and the “pee tape” claim — were both thought possibly to have been part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

The dossier was key to securing the wiretap on Page, which Goldman doesn’t mention. He instead writes, “Investigators eventually suspected that Russian spies had marked Mr. Page for recruitment” as the reason they were able to get a wiretap.

All of which to say, in a story about malfeasance on Carter Page’s FISA warrants, Goldman doesn’t mention the dossier until the penultimate paragraph of a 30-paragraph story.

These are just a few of the ways Goldman manipulates the story to protect the Russia collusion hoax he participated in. Because they were co-conspirators in the hoax, too many in the corporate media are serving as obstacles to holding the FBI and other powerful government agencies accountable for their actions.

MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY: NYT Opinion Editor’s Telling Resignation Letter

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 

Sincerely,

Bari