Media

The New York Times, NBC, and Other Outlets Don't Trust You To Handle the Truth

The mainstream media are channeling Dr. Zaius, the elitist orangutan from Planet of the Apes, who hid dark secrets out of misguided paternalism.

|

In the original Planet of the Apes movie (1968), the most-fascinating character is Dr. Zaius, the elitist, orangutan in chief who alone possessed the secret knowledge that (spoiler alert!) apes descended from humans. Toward the end of the film—shortly before he warns Charlton Heston's character not to search for the truth "because you may not like what you find!"—he monologues that the hoi polloi (chimps and gorillas in this case) must be shielded from certain realities lest they be driven to insanity and nihilism.

The legacy media are having their Dr. Zaius moment, paternalistically shielding their infantile audience (read: you and me) from ugly images and realities. This is not simply a revolting development but a deeply troubling one that will only accelerate the ongoing loss of confidence and trust the public has in media. According to polling done for the Columbia Journalism Review, fewer than 20 percent of us have a "great deal of confidence" in the press. The only institution held in lower esteem is Congress.

Yet the media seem happy to keep digging their own grave. Yesterday, for instance, The New York Times reported on what it called a "macabre video of [a] fake Trump shooting media and critics" that was shown at a conference held at one of the president's own properties (Trump had nothing to do with the conference or the video, which the White House has condemned). You'd assume the paper would link to or embed the video in support of its characterization. But it refused to, even as it's safe to say that it was the Times' coverage that helped bring the video to a large viewing audience (that's how I learned about it). Instead, it described the video, which was included in an exhibition of videos associated with pro-Trump "memesmith" Carpe Donktum, thus:

The video, which includes the logo for Mr. Trump's 2020 re-election campaign, comprises a series of internet memes. The most violent clip shows Mr. Trump's head superimposed on the body of a man opening fire inside the "Church of Fake News" on parishioners who have the faces of his critics or the logos of media organizations superimposed on their bodies. It appears to be an edited scene of a church massacre from the 2014 dark comedy film "Kingsman: The Secret Service."

Here's the video that the Times was quick to write about but refused to link to in its online coverage (forget about embedding!). Decide for yourself is this is too much for regular folks to handle:

The video, which was originally posted to YouTube over a year ago, had virtually no views until the Times' coverage; as of this writing, it had more than 136,000 views on the channel above and has been viewed millions more times in various YouTube and Twitter iterations. The Times' leadership seems more than willing to grab readers' eyeballs by talking about the video, but they are not willing to provide readers with easy access to the offending material.

A similar mindset seems at work behind the producers of Meet the Press, who "in good conscience" refused to show footage from a recent presidential rally that they nonetheless had no qualms about condemning from a moral point of view:

Here's one version of relevant passages from the rally, in which the president lays into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter (this starts around the two-minute mark). Trump's rhetorical question, "Where's Hunter?" even started trending on Twitter in the wake of this.

It's ugly stuff, to be sure, but that's exactly why the press should not be reticent both in covering controversial speech and providing access to it. That's the best way for the audience to agree with any given outlet's analysis, assuming it is accurate and truly persuasive. Instead, the press is choosing to become passive-aggressive, effectively saying, "Here's a really disturbing important thing that X just did, but we're not going to let you judge for yourself." That's what the New Zealand media did after the Christchurch mass shooting this year. In the name of fighting "extremism," the government banned owning or sharing the shooter's manifesto, which was a disgusting piece of incoherent white supremacist garbage. Amazingly, the New Zealand media voluntarily censored its own coverage of the event, the shooter, and judicial procedures—and drew praise from American journalists for such actions.

The actions of the Times, Meet the Press, and the New Zealand media will not slow the loss of confidence and trust in the media. On the contrary, such behavior will accelerate it as readers continue to rebel against such paternalism by searching out alternative sources of information (including many shady, conspiracist sites). There's already a widespread belief, some or much it justified, that powerful elites hold most Americans in various forms of contempt. Simultaneously telling those same readers, viewers, and listeners that big, important, scary things are happening and then withholding primary sources is a perfect recipe to increase cynicism and anger toward the media.

Paternalism didn't work for Dr. Zaius (what kind of doctor was he, anyway?) and it's even less likely to work for the solons overseeing the decline of empires of print, cable, and other forms of legacy media. They should trust their readership and give them more information, not less, when it comes to the news of the day.

NEXT: Government Scares Companies Away From Facebook's Libra Project

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

185 responses to “The New York Times, NBC, and Other Outlets Don't Trust You To Handle the Truth

  1. What is that scene originally from? And how many rounds does that fucking gun hold?

    1. As I recall it’s several guns. It’s from Kingsman: The Secret Service. It was pretty over the top but I enjoyed it. This scene was [SPOILER ALERT] a fundamentalist church whose parishioners were mind controlled. The fundamentalist, Westboro-ish part was important so you didn’t mourn their loss too much.

      1. Solid film.
        Rather anti-progressive, which is a nice surprise.
        The villain is a fanatical tech tycoon environmentalist, played by Samuel Jackson, who plans on driving everyone on earth to murder each other, while his hand selected elites hide away in a remote mountain fortress to wait out the slaughter. The murder-signal is delivered by cell phones he gives away en masse as an ostensible act of altruism. Even has a scene where he meets with the anonymous POTUS, who resembles Obama.

        1. It is excellent political commentary, even if you disagree with it. But playing a game of “it’s too disgusting to show” is itself a deliberate, facetious political manipulation.

          Brian made a tweet and got cancel cultured, so bad even Meg and Chris got hassled. Applies here both in nature and in thd very topic of this thread.
          https://youtu.be/pful6Iinv_4

      2. It was perfectly fine for the elitist Secret Service man to kill all the deplorable extras in the Hollywood movie.
        But turn them into media companies, and it is suddenly an atrocity

      3. The churchgoers were Kingsboro Baptist looking people, not so you wouldn’t mourn their loss, but so all the left-leaning viewers could cheer and laugh at Colin Firth’s mayhem. I don’t remember any cautions from the lefty reviewers about too much violence in the movie. My guess they were also cheering and laughing at the hicks being slaughtered. to them it only became a horror when lefty news outlets were pasted on the hicks’ faces. Take off those logos and it would be just another joyous shoot-me-up, even for, maybe especially for, all the lefty fake journos.

    2. Kingsman: Secret Service

      Original scene is Colin Firth in the Trump role. IIRC, people are being influenced by some sort of mind-control ray that makes them unleash their most violent impulses.

      1. “I’m a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. Hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon madam.”

        One of the best lines ever!!

      2. At least I gave a spoiler alert, you fascist.

        1. *cackles maniacally*

    3. Yes! I would dearly love to buy a handgun holding that many rounds!

      1. You’d actually prefer a spork that held that much shit for you to eat.

  2. “Dr. Zaius (what kind of doctor was he, anyway?)”

    Doctor of Divinity, as evidenced by his title of “Defender of the Faith” and the quotations from their book of scripture. Orangutans were the clergy of ape society.

    And before anyone else can post it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlmzUEQxOvA

    1. And apparently Valerie Jarrett’s father.

      1. She really does have that Planet of the Apes physiognomy. It’s not a black thing, it’s just her face. It wasn’t smart to make the comparison because the outrage machine fires into action and the most bad faith, politically convenient assumptions are made about motives and meaning, and there is no shortage of dishonest apologia from people who kid themselves they are entirely virtuous, to back up and validate the wall of hate from the opportunistic outrage crazies.

    2. Orange Man vs. Orange Ape

      I’m surprised Nick went there.
      Sounds kinda racist.

  3. Trump should just use this as a campaign ad. Normally, I’d think that idea was nuts, but it could work now.

  4. >>> fewer than 20 percent of us has a “great deal of confidence” in the press.

    do you not identify as press?

    1. In that case, make it fewer than 10%.

    2. I think they also identify as Americans, is the point.

  5. OK, that first video was disturbing.

    The second video – what exactly is the problem with it? It sounds like a standard political speech. Did they censor Biden’t “put y’all in chains” remark?

    1. Except, it wasn’t disturbing to all of the media when it was originally shown in the movie Kingsmen: The Secret Service. Actually, it was a fun movie. It was never meant to be taken too seriously. Just like the Trump version.

      1. In the movie we get the context that the bad guys are plotting their totally evil murderous badness at a church which has been hijacked for that purpose.

        IIRC the bad guys wanted to kill a big part of the planet’s population.

        Thus the good guys are interrupting killers in the midst of their plots.

        The media’s badness is not of the same caliber as the badness of the bad guys in the movie, and the context might be missed. Anyway, it’s tasteless – too tasteless for Trump, who knows how to be tasteless (and I say this in half-praise).

        1. Hollywood knows how to set up its violence so that the good guys are justified in gunning down the bad guys. The set-up makes clear that the bad guys are murderous evildoers who deserves what’s coming to them, so the audience an cheer.

        2. No, in the movie, the bad guys want to test out their mind control ray (i.e. show the audience what it does) that causes people to go crazy and start killing one another. So they set it off at a deep south baptist church, causing all the church goers to go nuts and slaughter one another. Colin Firth is a super awesome secret agent, so when he is affected by the mind ray, he is extra effective at slaughtering everyone.

          I loved the first movie. It is hilariously over the top. But the whole irony here is that the baptist church was setup as an unsympathetic victim so that we could laugh as Firth blew away men and women and preachers. Nobody talked about how this was demeaning, or promoting violence against religious people in the south (even though the message was, “hey totally cool to kill bigots, amiright??!”).

          1. But the whole irony here is that the baptist church was setup as an unsympathetic victim so that we could laugh as Firth blew away men and women and preachers. Nobody talked about how this was demeaning, or promoting violence against religious people in the south (even though the message was, “hey totally cool to kill bigots, amiright??!”).

            I found the scene kind of disturbing in it’s cheerfulness, honestly, and wasn’t quite sure what to make of it. I thought maybe it was trying to tread a Tarantino-sort of line of trying to mingle humor with horror.

            If your read is correct, it makes me lose a lot of respect for the movie (although I admit it makes more sense than my initial take).

            1. I don’t remember all the plot details, except there was a coming-of-age story with a lot of people getting shot, and getting blowed up real good. Fun for the whole family, and I liked it for what it was.

              I’d forgotten about the “make the Baptists kill each other” angle – over the top, but so was the whole film.

              Bottom line – not really the image you want in a political ad which centrists can see.

              And did they get the needed permissions, or is this fair use?

    2. HUNTER Biden?

      I’m triggered.

    3. “Disturbing”

      “Yeah. We live in a post-joke world.”

      https://youtu.be/pful6Iinv_4

    4. Regarding that first video, it’s always good to have a little Free Bird during the day. I liked it.

    5. quit your pearl clutching and have a laugh at the absurd, because that’s all it is

  6. It’s ugly stuff, to be sure, but that’s exactly why the press should not be reticent both in covering controversial speech and providing access to it.

    Not ugly enough, most likely. And the rhetoric perhaps possibly a little too persuasive.

    Thanks for showing the video, Gillespie. I laughed all the way through it. Absurdity mixed with audacity apparently tickles the funny bone here.

    1. In fact, let’s not forget that the media were wearing hair shirts over all that free press they gave Trump during the primaries, at the time no doubt believing it would doom him if people saw all that ugly.

    2. I couldn’t help but laugh at several points.

    3. I laughed all the way through too; and texted (one of) my millennial daughters so she and her husband could have a good laugh too!
      (I told her again the commentors here ain’t like they used to be. They, my kids, know about the “other site.” I’m pleased with their perspectives. They sure as heck don’t fit the stereotypical millennial crap we’re fed.
      I think a lot of them are smarter than that.
      At least where we come from.

  7. Don’t trust people to handle the truth

    Or is it rather that they don’t want people to draw their own conclusions.

    Kinda like “so and so is a racist, we aren’t gonna show you, just trust us”

    1. “”Or is it rather that they don’t want people to draw their own conclusions.”‘

      I’m going with this.

      1. Me too.

  8. “…the hoi polloi…”

    Editor! Stat!

    1. Mount Fujiyama.

      1. I went to the ATM machine at 10AM in the morning and used my car’s VIN number as a password.

    2. Someone once told me hoi meant the, so the hoi polloi is the the polloi.

  9. must be shielded from certain realities lest they be driven to insanity and nihilism.

    Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, dude, at least it’s an ethos.

  10. Dr. Zaius, the elitist orangutan from Planet of the Apes, who hid dark secrets out of misguided paternalism.

    Figures Nick would side with those insufferable hippie chimps.

  11. Trust has nothing to do with it. They don’t want anyone to know the truth. They want to narrate the truth. 1984 is an operating manual to them..

    1. Yeah if by them you mean Fox News and right wing media in general then I agree with you about 1984 in action. Nothing in the so called mainstream media even comes close in comparison to the insanity, gaslighting, lying on right wing radio and Fox “News”. I’ll grant to you the possibility that there was once an equivalency but that ain’t the state of things these days.

      1. Nothing in the so called mainstream media even comes close in comparison to the insanity, gaslighting, lying on right wing radio and Fox “News”.

        This is what’s known as left-wing gaslighting.

        Your side used stock footage of a gun show in Kentucky to portray the Kurds and Turks fighting each other. Your side edited the Zimmerman 911 call and whitewashed his skin color.

        Get the fuck out of here with your half-assed progressive special pleading.

        1. “”This is what’s known as left-wing gaslighting.””

          Nothing says gaslighting like trying to convince people Trump is literally like Hitler.

          I know liberals that wouldn’t call the camps at the border anything other than concentration camps. If you called them something else they would say you’re wrong and you are using semantics. In reality you could call them several things. But liberals were demanding you use the term that associates Trump to Hitler. They literally wanted you to associate what’s going down at the border as us taking people from their homes, starving them, using them as slave labor, and mass murder.

          That’s gaslighting to the highest order.

      2. Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound Pod?

        1. “Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound Pod?”

          No, because Pod doesn’t just sound that stupid, he *is* that stoooooopid.

      3. Let’s ask Harvard about bias in the newsroom…

        Oh shit, Pod looks like a retard.

        https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/example-of-media-bias/harvard-study-reveals-media-bias/

        1. Good link – THX

        2. It’s surprising it took the other media outlets this long to turn into Fox News, but the other direction.

          They don’t admit it. Fox News fans don’t admit it. So we play this charade of arguments.

          1. Are you seriously saying the media has not been biased since before Trump?
            Was FNC a thing in 1992 when NBC news faked video footage of GMC trucks exploding upon impact? Was FNC a thing when CNN was caught faking videos of an AR-15 shredding concrete blocks in 1994? Was FNC a thing when Walter Cronkite dishonestly portrayed the Tet offensive as an NVA victory?

          2. One would think after the Wikileaks revelations about all the coordination between Democrat politicians and journolists in the media (that have been captured by the government establishment, just like regulated industries capture their regulators and use them to their advantage) people would see it’s the political establishment and liberal MSM in bed together to push the Democrat fake narrative. The establishment includes RINOs like Bush, Rubio, McConnell, and about 70% of the GOP in Congress.

            The Democrats have also done their best to co-opt the conservative viewpoint, by hiring guys like Joe Scarborough and calling them conservatives. It’s almost like hiring a chimpanzee and asking him for the conservative point of view on TV.

  12. The video, which was originally posted to YouTube over a year ago, had virtually no views until the Times’ coverage; as of this writing, it had more than 136,000 views on the channel above and has been viewed millions more times in various YouTube and Twitter iterations.

    This is a commentary on the press how? I watched the video, and it was clearly satirical, and maybe a little harsh – for instance, my reaction to the superimposition of his predecessor on a guy Trump blew away was just over the line and I did not like that. Someone had a lot of time on their hands. The question is why is it suddenly relevant now and not a year ago when it was made?

    1. The question is why is it suddenly relevant now and not a year ago when it was made?

      Let me tell you a little story about a youtube movie about Islam that was the cause of an attack on the Libyan embassy.

      1. Thank you.

    2. Because it was played at Trump’s party.

      1. It wasn’t Trump’s party you dumbfuck.

        1. But because it was shown by a group of conservatives on Trump’s property (likely renting out a conference room) the liberal MSM wants to claim it’s Trump’s party and video.

          I hear that next week, a video shown at a park with statues of confederate generals, depicting Trump blowing away Clinton voters with a flame thrower, will be covered by The View, condemning Trump for the video he had nothing to do with.

    3. “virtually no views until the Times’ coverage”

      I doubt that. It was all over the place for a while. Naturally such videos don’t impinge on Nick’s cocoon.

      There was a whole genre of these before the election, if anyone feels the need for more pearl clutching.

      Remember when the #EnemyOfThePeople had a cow over Trump tweeting a WWE clip of Trump, but with the CNN logo superimposed on the wrestler Trump decked?

      Good times.

      #CryMore

    1. I just saw that video and it’s pretty fuckin’ funny– especially the part where he ganks McCain.

      Yeah, I finally got around to watching it just now, and it made me laugh out loud. They did a great job with Trump’s expressions.

      1. Perhaps now you can understand how your betters feel as they watch you fail, sputter, whine, and be replaced.

        The culture war is real. You lose.

        1. By betters you still mean white rich liberals, right you racist?

          1. Yeah, these guys:
            1) Lincoln Stephens
            2) Walter Duranty
            3) Joseph Davies
            4) Julian Huxley
            5) Upton Sinclair
            6) John Dewey
            7) Jean Paul Sarte
            8) Henry Wallace
            9) Alger Hiss
            10) Malcom Cowley
            11) Edmund Wilson
            12) G. B. Shaw
            13) Lillian Hellman
            14) C. Wright Mills
            15-20)Donald MacLean, Kim Philby, and the remainder of the Cambridge useful idiots
            21) Harold Lasky
            22) Jacques Derrida
            23) Harrison Salisbury
            24) Norman Mailer
            25) Graham Greene
            26) Harry Bridges
            Winning since 1917!

            1. Needs more Jews. Try again.

              1. “Needs more Jews. Try again.”

                We don’t need more stupidity; you showed up and filled the bill, you pathetic piece of shit.

                1. Good effort, but I’m not Jewish. Put a little more work and your kike bashing will improve.

                  1. We don’t need more stupidity; you showed up and filled the bill, you pathetic piece of shit.

        2. Haha. The rev is “winning” just like Charlie sheen. In his own self important mind.

          Don’t change a thing, old man.

      2. Trump does a great job with Trump expressions. So much over the top material.

      3. Yeah, it was pretty funny – and the expressions were too! I shared it with a few of my kids so they could get a laugh too.

  13. It’s ugly stuff, to be sure, but that’s exactly why the press should not be reticent both in covering controversial speech and providing access to it.

    It’s counterculture maaaan. Fuck your imposed morality and rules.

    1. Well the video only depicted what the news outlets and the democrats have been saying about Trump and his supporters every since he won the nomination in 2016. At every Trump rally where there was trouble it was Trump’ and his supports but never the opposition fault. At Hillary’s rally if there was trouble it was because of Trump told his supporters to do that.

    2. That was my pull quote.

      Ugly stuff, to be sure?

      What the hell are you on about?

      He says “they say ‘Trump says Hunter got millions’ without evidence'” and proceeds to lampoon the press for pretending that what actually happened quite publicly didn’t happen.

      Why would you characterize that as ugly? Ugly is using political office to get rich. Why do you think these people are paying Biden’s kid. Or Kerry’s kid. Or Pelosi’s kid? Do you really believe that Biden Jr. suddenly went from Navy dropout to senior executive level expert in Ukrainian oil production? Or was it because of Daddy?

      Do we really have to pretend that all of that is above board? I’ve worked with the board of directors of a billion dollar publicly traded company. Everyone was there for a reason. They were major stakeholders or brought serious outside expertise to the table. Nobody was a neophyte, that’s for sure. If they had stuck some politician’s kid on that board, you can bet that it would have been for a specific financial reason.

      So not only are we not going to discuss the obvious corruption that Biden Jr’s career demonstrates, even mentioning it is “ugly”? And somehow the world would realize just how ugly Trump is if we only showed him criticizing the press for their treatment of the Biden issue?

      Did you really think that? Or were you just trying to tie a couple of paragraphs together? Because that makes absolutely no sense.

      1. Thank you.

  14. Trump had nothing to do with the conference or the video

    Apart from it being held at his house in his honor.

    1. Wow, two lies in a small statement. Holy fuck you’ve gone complete retard.

    2. “Apart from it being held at his house in his honor.”

      No, it was at some real estate he owns, and even shitbag here can’t control who thinks he’s worthy of compliments if he could find anyone who does.

      1. Would you make such a distinction if it was property owned by the Clintons?

        1. I’m sure if it was the Clintons, you would make such a distinction.

          Hypocrites try to point out other people’s hypocrisy as if they are not hypocrites themselves. I can’t help but to laugh.

          1. I asked first, dickhole.

            Pop quiz hotshot. Which is more corrupt:

            A) The Clinton Foundation
            B) The Trump Foundation

            Bonus points for showing your work.

            1. A because the media did yeoman’s work helping to hide it’s corruption.

            2. If I remember correctly, the Clinton Foundation dried up once it was obvious her shrillness wouldn’t have any influence in DC anymore, so by default it would have to be Trump.

              1. So you have no idea about what’s going on in the real universe whatsoever.

                1. “So you have no idea about what’s going on in the real universe whatsoever.”

                  Well, yes we do, and you are a fucking ignoramus”
                  “Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.”
                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-
                  reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-
                  to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-
                  dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-
                  8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_
                  term=.2cbca4a77536

            3. Tony
              October.15.2019 at 2:09 pm
              “I asked first, dickhole….”

              You posted more BS, shitstain.

        2. Tony
          October.15.2019 at 10:07 am
          “Would you make such a distinction if it was property owned by the Clintons?”

          Why do dumb-shit lefties, when called on their constant bullshit, offer some hypothetical (bullshit) response?

    3. Kinda like when Bernie Sanders shot those Congressmen

  15. rather than insulting it is better to just vacation Trip wisata Pulau Bidadari Pasti seru

  16. The New York Times, NBC, and Other Outlets Don’t Trust You To Handle the Truth . . .
    Even worse NBC and other outlets not only don’t trust the voters to handle the truth these outlet don’t even report the news but instead of they shape the news to say what they want it to say. This is what I have observed for the last about 40 years and this shaping has gotten more pronounced in the last 15 to 20 years.

    1. “Becoming more pronounced” like a raging pants-tent. They can’t wait to breathlessly report the transgression of the day, frothing the plebes into NPC-gasm, riding the downward spiral into what Styxhexenhammer666 has named, not a civil war, but a “social war” that is bubbling under the surface, building up pressure in some places until the crust of civility can no longer hold back the mantle and there is an eruption–welcomed by the media–of violent acts that can be further exploited for that sweet, sweet left-right ‘HOW-VERY-DARE-YOU’ rage.

      It is all really quite entertaining. I don’t see the problem, except for the people hurt and killed… But hey, eggs and omelettes as they say. Best to stay out of urban centers and events by “nazis” such as milquetoast fence-sitter Tim Pool and liberal Sargon (though its perfectly save to watch them on YouTube etc.)

      It really is an amazing time to be alive… Technology, life expectancy, space exploration, dwindling poverty, scientific discovery are all reported as ‘meh’ while Trump saying “ass” is MAJOR BREAKING NEWS. Incredible advances are ignored over monkeys throwing shit at each other (and endless war).

      1. Pffffffttt…… HOW DARE YOU resort to positivity when clearly everything is so terrible and unfair?

        Haha

    2. No, you’re just getting senile, gramps.

      1. SimonP
        October.14.2019 at 11:16 pm
        “No, you’re just getting senile, gramps.”
        So, as an infantile intelligence, the best you can do is call someone ‘old’?
        Did you finally get out of the 5th grade at age 13?

        1. So, as an infantile intelligence, the best you can do is call someone ‘old’?

          I suppose I could just tell him to choke on a dick and die, which would be more your style.

          1. “I suppose I could just tell him to choke on a dick and die, which would be more your style.”

            Far too advanced for an infantile intelligence.
            Fuck off and die.

    3. Yeah, this isn’t exactly new: The legacy media have been taking things out of context, and deliberately avoiding providing access to original sources, for decades. It’s just gotten more conspicuous now that linking to original sources is trivially easy, and they still don’t do it.

      1. Remember a year or two ago when people in the media were claiming it was illegal for the average american to read the leaked DNC e.ails?

      2. It’s an issue now because the Mueller report didn’t indict Trump. The impeachment isn’t going the way they want. They are trying to dogpile anything and everything they can on Trump because nothing has given them the bang for the buck they expected.

        I don’t think it’s going to work either.

  17. The New York Times, NBC, and Other Outlets Don’t Trust You To Handle the Truth

    Sure, that’s why they’re only giving you half the story, they’re concerned that you can’t handle so much truth all at once. It’s the same reason I keep all the dead hookers in my crawlspace, I’m sparing the families from the awful truth that their loved ones were dirty, dirty whores. It’s certainly not that if the whole story were to come out you’d realize what a horrible evil lying piece of shit I am, no sirree – because I’m not. I’m just nobly and honorably shielding you from a truth you can’t handle. In fact, I should probably get a medal or an award or a prize of some sort for my great work in revealing only that part of the truth you can handle.

  18. I’ve read that deepfakes were getting really good, but I didn’t realize they were already THIS good.

  19. C’mon Reason, you were actually writing a decent article before your urge to virtue signal clicked on:

    “It’s ugly stuff, to be sure,”

    It’s not ugly, it’s speech. Wtf.

    1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

      So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

      Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

      Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

      Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

      At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

      Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

      Thank You! -Reason Staff

  20. Meanwhile, Reason could be said not to trust its own readers to draw their own conclusions.

    Every journalistic institution is going to have standards that they try to abide by, and they’re just as likely to be criticized for flouting them as they are for abiding by them. Here, it’s evident that the NYTimes felt the video was so reprehensible as to be irresponsible to link to – like a video depicting a graphic murder, say. It’s also evident that the NYTimes (as well as other mainstream media institutions covering this “story”) are highly sensitive to any politicized messages that include doing physical harm to them. That sensitivity might be understandable, since they cover media crackdowns in other countries and are regularly subject to our own government’s attempts to silence them.

    All that said, I don’t view the video to have been tantamount to an existential threat to the media, nor do I view the media’s decision not to promote it by linking as all that remarkable. This is a great big non-story all around. But don’t let that get in the way of Reason’s histrionic sniping.

    1. There was this character called Simple… wait forget the second name… definitely Simple something… do you know Simon?

      1. Good one, Jizzie.

        1. Stupid one, Shitbag.

    2. And yet the NYT has no qualms about publishing Trump assassination fanfics so they aren’t really all that shy about violence. And they have very selective incitement criteria, i.e. no one on the left is ever responsible for acts committed in their name or following their rhetoric, only the right.

      1. While I don’t find the NYTimes’ experiment in speculative fiction either appropriate for the institution or particularly tasteful, I would draw a distinction between that example – where they merely published the work of authors they invited to contribute – and what they might be doing on the “hard news” side of things.

        Same way that Fox News lies 95% of the time, calling it “just our opinion, man.”

        1. “…While I don’t find the NYTimes’ experiment in speculative fiction either appropriate for the institution or particularly tasteful, I would draw a distinction between that example – where they merely published the work of authors they invited to contribute – and what they might be doing on the “hard news” side of things…”

          Doesn’t all that spinning make you dizzy?

            1. Too dimwitted for it to be a bother.

        2. “…experiment in speculative fiction… ”

          LOL

          “I’m a mendacious asshole caught by his own double standard”

          1. As far as I’m concerned, not a single conservative in the universe is in any position to chastise anyone else for employing a “double standard.”

            Anyway, call it a “double standard” if you like – it quite plainly is a “double standard,” specifically insofar as I can understand why the NYTimes might employ one set of standards when it reports on what happens at Mar-a-Lago and another one when it invites authors to write clearly fictional pieces.

            It is not really that hard to understand, unless, of course, you have a particular axe to grind.

            1. “what happens at Mar-a-Lago and another one when it invites authors to write clearly fictional pieces.”

              Simon thinks that a clever elision. When it only demonstrates that he cannot recognize that ‘what happened” at Mar-a-Lago was the display of a clearly fictional piece.

              Or, did you really think that video was a documentary?

            2. Good thing we aren’t conservatives then.

        3. Simon now thinks memes are hard news and that is why trump should be condemned… or something stupid like that.

          1. I don’t think memes are “hard news.” I think that was pretty clear. I think that this is an example of the media making a mountain out of a molehill.

    3. SimonP
      October.14.2019 at 8:12 pm
      “…Every journalistic institution is going to have standards that they try to abide by, and they’re just as likely to be criticized for flouting them as they are for abiding by them…”

      Yeah, the NYT’s standard is commonly known as “hypocrisy”.

      1. This is literally the same week Farrow has his book come put showing NBC is worse than they portrayed Trump, abc aired Kentucky gun ranges as Syria, and Veritas exposed CNN. The media has one standard, how do we prop up Democrats.

      2. When you read a fucking newspaper, Sevo, I might give a shit about your opinion about whether they’re “hypocritical” or not.

        Meanwhile we’re commenting on a site that is not at all subtle about pushing its Koch-funded agenda.

        1. So butthurt and desperate.

          1. Not really.

        2. SimonP
          October.14.2019 at 11:13 pm
          When you read a fucking newspaper, Sevo, I might give a shit about your opinion about whether they’re “hypocritical” or not.”
          When you post something other than lefty lies, you piece of shit, I might, maybe……

          “Meanwhile we’re commenting on a site that is not at all subtle about pushing its Koch-funded agenda.”
          OH, OH! Lame piece of shit has to fall back on “Kock-funded”! How…
          Pathetic.
          Fuck off and die; the world needs more intelligence.

          1. “When you post something other than lefty lies, you piece of shit, I might, maybe……”

            Prolly not; your rep is well earned you pathetic piece of shit.
            Please make the world more intelligent; fuck off and die where we can smell you.

  21. Meh, Family Guy did a better parody of the Kingsmen church scene.

    1. Apropos this thread, “It was a joke.”

      https://youtu.be/pful6Iinv_4

  22. Nick, please be advised that NBC news, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc are not media outlets. They are paid agents of the socialists, spreading the inevitable lies and propaganda of the left. They no longer pretend at all.

    1. Well that’s one way for Reason to join the MSM, I guess.

    2. Wait – who’s paying them, exactly?

      Meanwhile, did you miss the bit where Trump had Shep Smith fired?

      1. Even cnn said that was a bullshit conspiracy you simpleton.

  23. I would settle for the NY Times withholding information, instead of outright lying. See the “opinion” pieces by Leonhardt and Kristoff amplifying the distortions in tax analysis by Saez and Zucman. And even “reporting” on the Trump video as they did will cause most of their “readers” to think that Trump actually promoted the video at one of his events.

    1. Embrace the healing power of ‘and.’

  24. Nick, you can’t handle my comment, so I won’t be posting it here. But it tears you a new asshole, drills a hole in your skull, emulsified your brain, and pours it into a bowl of maggots.

  25. The apes didn’t descend from humans in Planet of the Apes. They inherited the Earth from the humans after the humans destroyed it. There were still humans on Earth at the same time as the apes, they’d just lost all knowledge and the ability to communicate in anything but rudimentary gestures.

    1. As I recall, it wasn’t so much “after the humans destroyed it”, as the humans having “uplifted” the apes to use as servants, then the apes rebelled and took over, destroying a lot of stuff in the process.

      But that might have been retroconned in, in a later movie.

      1. So you’re the other Brin fan out there (though not of his politics).

      2. The uplift wasn’t until later movies. In the first one, the famous ending, it was suggested nuclear war caused it.

      3. It was retconned. I believe the servant angle came from the miniseries, not the films. The original just had humans as primitives because they destroyed the Earth and apes leapfrogged them on the evolutionary ladder.

  26. Speaking of the truth – the announcers are even saying the refs fucked Detroit. Two “hands to the face” calls that weren’t and a blatant pass interference that wasn’t – and Aaron Rodgers has the nerve to thank God, his offensive line, the receivers, the coaches, and not even so much as a tip of the hat to the refs that really won the game.

    1. That was an abomination.

      I’ve suspected that I was watching a fixed game before….. but all those times were not nearly as bad as this one.

      The only thing I can recall that was more blatant was a college game back in the 80’s. NC State VS Wake Forest. I don’t even remember which team it was, but they were behind by a couple with about 30 seconds to go in the game. They threw a long pass and the receiver was eventually tackled at the 10 yard line or so after a 40 yard gain. Instead of immediately stopping the clock, the ref walked down, waited for the players to unpile, set the ball, looked for the marker, then looked up to the box and signaled to stop the clock…. just as the clock ran down to zero. Over 30 seconds ran off the clock on a play that didn’t take 10, and the game was declared over. That was a pretty obvious fix.

      But those calls against Detroit were a close second. Way too many came at critical moments that changed possessions – and they were really, really blatant.

      1. My father used to say that about half of the games were fixed, but only as needed. The more I watch, the more I believe it.

        Ever watch an Alabama game?? New England?

        Yep

      2. The non-calls against Green Bay were pretty bad too. Refs were a bit too obvious about who Gooddell wanted to see win that game.

  27. That video was pretty good.
    This “controversy” on the other hand is derivative and unoriginal.
    We already did this.
    Does no one remember the freakout over Trump retweeting the WWE show he was in with the CNN logo superimposed on his opponent?

    1. The Kingsmen video is a step beyond – set in a church for plot-related reasons which might not be familiar to those who didn’t see the movie, it shows Trump going through the church and killing media outlets and Dem politicians.

      Stick to namecalling.

      1. Where is this step beyond? Do you need a fainting couch?

  28. I’ve always thought there’s a good answer for reporting where you don’t show the evidence. Don’t publish it.

    Would be cool if we controlled our own news feeds more. I’d hit the “Evidence suppressed = news suppressed” setting.

    1. Interesting idea…..

      Kinda fits in with the new media-wide agreement that the way to discredit anything said by Trump is to use the phrase “without evidence”. As in, “Trump alleges, without evidence, that Biden …”

      In the case of Biden, it isn’t even remotely true. You might not agree with the conclusion that something untoward is happening, but you can’t claim that there is no evidence that something is going on. Junior getting that job is evidence. The only qualification for that board seems to be western political connections. Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired is evidence. Biden denying he knew anything about his son’s job even though he is pictured playing golf with one of the company’s executives is evidence.

      You might not agree that the evidence is conclusive, but you certainly can’t dismiss it out of hand as “without evidence”. Yet that is what every single media outlet (and the fact-check sites) are doing.

  29. This is a great piece by Gillespie, but it’s missing one thing: the word “elitism” should have appeared somewhere. He uses “paternalism”, but that’s not quite it. The reason the word “elitism” should be there is because populism–in all its forms from left to right–is driven by elitism specifically rather than paternalism.

    I maintain that Trump didn’t just win in spite of the way he was covered in 2016. Rather, he won because if the way he was covered in 2016. There was a similar drop in the public’s confidence in the press in 2016. That the numbers are even worse now is impressive. It suggests that Trump will win again for the same reasons.

    “Populists typically present “the elite” as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of “the people”. Populist parties and social movements are often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as the “voice of the people”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

    The press isn’t only driving an anti-elitist populist reaction to itself. It’s also throwing kerosene on the anti-elitist fire that made Donald Trump’s victory possible.

  30. It would be interesting to do a study on why the news media seems to represent such a market failure. How does an industry that’s so directly connected to average customers manage to alienate them so badly?

    I understand if people are mad about their hospital service. They’re typically not the ones paying for their own insurance, their employer is, and more than half the consumers of hospital services are on government programs. The staff is heavily regulated by bureaucrats.

    The news media isn’t like the DMV. Customers can change the channel any time they like at no cost–and yet customers are about as contemptuous of the news media as they are of the service they get at the DMV. McDonalds and Disneyland don’t have this problem. Why does the news media?

    1. Well, you’re generally not paying directly for your news media, either: It’s advertising supported, they’re selling your eyeballs and ears to the advertisers. You’re the product, not the customer.

      But I see the real problem here as, strangely enough, being things like mutual funds; Absentee stock owners who aren’t actively interested in the running of the company.

      This leads to management that can get away with treating the company as their own property, and using it to advance their own causes and interests, without having to be concerned about if they’re running it into the ground, because they can just jump out with a golden parachute.

      It used to be that this manifested as companies suddenly getting interested in donating to charity; As a manager you’d be taxed if you just took the company’s money and gave it to yourself, but if you just took the company’s money and gave it to your favorite charity? You could spin that as a good thing, even though you were spending the company’s money like it was your own just as much as if you’d bought yourself a nice car.

      But the left’s “march through the institutions”, which particularly targets the cultural high ground of media companies and educational institutions, has resulted in a management class who would rather run the company into the ground winning political battles than building museums and funding orchestras.

      1. You hit on a couple of points that I think are especially relevant.

        1) One of them is that media properties and their news organizations are bought up by rich and powerful people in the headlines as a means to protect themselves from criticism. Bill Gates’ mentor was Warren Buffet, who made doing that a priority back before Cap Cities/ABC was part of the Disney. When Gates went looking for a mentor to show him how to avoid landing in the cross-hairs of antitrust again, he took Buffet’s lead and bought a stake in NBC’s media properties–and that’s how MSNBC was born. Nowadays, if you want to dig up dirt about Buffet or Gates and put on the air, you better hope you don’t someday need a job–and have to look for it at ABC, NBC, or any property owned by Disney.

        Bezos bought The Washington Post–and it wasn’t because he was impressed by the prospects of their revenue growth. Sheldon Adelson (the casino magnate) just bought The Las Vegas Review Journal. It’s not enough that the casinos own the state of Nevada. They want to own the news media, too. It’s an old formula, and it works: if you want the left to leave you alone, buy their media properties, employ their news desks, and let them cover anything they want–so long as they filter out all the shit about you.

        The “profit” in these companies isn’t being measured in dollars and cents, or, if they’re being evaluated that way, it’s in terms of what investment people call “goodwill”.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

        2) Subscriber based news media seems to be better than the free with advertising model.

        Bloomberg is coming from the center left. The Wall Street Journal is coming from the center right. They have their own points of view in the opinion sections, but the news itself appears to be superior to what I find elsewhere–and they’re both still charging subscriptions for content.

        I would add point number 3).

        Most cities only had one newspaper that mattered before the internet anyway because distribution was a barrier to entry. You had to deliver a morning edition to every single house in town every single morning. So, they were coming from a tradition of monopolistic behavior anyway. The television networks weren’t much better. There were three of them, but that didn’t provide much variety. All three networks pretty much covered the same news in the same way. They weren’t trying to differentiate themselves so much as they were trying to be just like each other. In a monopoly, you can treat your customers like shit. Oligopolies are sustained by huge economies of scale rather than differentiating yourself on quality. The inertia from those industry models may have just carried forward through to the present day.

        4) Cable news gets credit for being far more influential than they are. Rachel Maddow is considered a success, and she averages about 3 million viewers–less than 1% of the American people. That’s less than the margin of error used to be for national broadcast news in the 70s and 80s. She can tailor her slant to appeal to a very small audience. Because her slant happens to be closely watched by other people in the media and gets picked up by partisans in social media, it seems like she has more influence than she does. Regardless, that business model can thrive without worry about things like fairness and the truth.

        1. Right, forgot to mention that one of the reasons media companies in particular can get away with this sort of thing, is that many of their investors aren’t looking for a financial return from them, they’re looking to run them at a loss while influencing public opinion.

  31. Interesting that no one complained about the violence in the original scene from Kingsman: The Secret Service, when it was some British agent slaughtering a church full of fundamentalist Christians.

    1. It’s really not interesting. The creators of the scene did so knowing knew they were safe from criticism, at least criticism from anyone who matters.

      This article is largely an exercise in the same thing.

      Pleather Jacket is trying to demonstrate that he matters.

      1. On the other hand, as the movie’s plot was written one of those involved in Valentine’s plan to murder (if indirectly) a majority of Earth’s population was an Obama stand-in who had his head asploded in the climax, when people in RL even just saying they disagreed with Obama’s policies were attacked as “racists” by the Doubleplus Good Bellyfeel crowd for doing so.

    2. You guys bitched about Obama wearing a tan suit.

  32. What’s actually happening is what i would term – reverting to the mean.

    It was not that long ago that no one thought of journalists as “non-partisan”. It was not even considered. We are simply reverting to the way things used to work. Everyone is partisan. Learn that simple truth

  33. The most vocal Americans – the most offended, the most fragile, the most hysterical, the most obsequious, the most willing to be greeted by throngs of fearful eggshell throwers (ever mindful of the positioning of their feet) – are firmly clasping a protective helmet over our collective heads, which have become mushy and soft, having marinated in the putrid juice of perpetual outrage. When you act like a retarded, sheltered child, you will be treated like one.

  34. I mean… We should count our lucky stars the NYT got a hold of that video first. Were it ABC, they would have claimed it was actual footage of what goes on at a Trump rally.

  35. Yeah, sure, the whole reason they aren’t showing us the entirety of stuff is that they care for us. It’s not because it helps them lie more effectively or anything, like how NPR and MSNBC did with the Trump transcript, phrasing it so it sounded like the conversation went directly from “let me ask for a favor” to “investigate the bidens”.

  36. What is “ugly” about investigating the Biden affair?

    Hunter got a job based on his last name. Nobody pays anyone millions for nothing so he delivered. Joe got the prosecutor investigating the corrupt Hunter employer fired. That is why Hunter was hired. Insurance policy, shield take your pick.

    Oh the fired prosecutor was corrupt? Maybe since it seems to be the norm in the Ukraine. But so was his successor. And none of that matters because the investigation was not completed it was dropped. And NOTHING has been debunked at all.

    1. Got anything that didn’t come from Infowars?

    2. The fired prosecutor was corrupt, according to people like the former head of the IMF, Rodrigo Rato.

      Why former? Because he’s currently in prison for embezzlement.

  37. Here’s the video that the Times was quick to write about but refused to link to in its online coverage (forget about embedding!). Decide for yourself is this is too much for regular folks to handle:

    I got to 0:05 and it was far too horrible to go any further. Yikes!

  38. I’m with Nick on this one. There’s all kinds of bias in the media. Here’s a video of Max Blumenthal going shopping in Caracas where everyone is supposedly starving. You won’t see that embedded at the NYTimes either!

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mbXqGiNlWWw

  39. Go look up the latest debacle from ABC Fake News. Forget it. Here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY3CTKlI7KA

    I say ABC goes and gets a room with China and the NBA and go fuck each to death.

  40. I assumed Dr. Zaius had a PhD. Maybe a Doctor of Divinity?

  41. The irony is that the NYT, etc can’t handle the truth.

  42. “In the original Planet of the Apes movie (1968), the most-fascinating character is Dr. Zaius, the elitist, orangutan in chief who alone possessed the secret knowledge that (spoiler alert!) apes descended from humans.”

    *That’s* what you took from the ending? Seriously?

  43. Public trust and confidence in the media? That’s a laugh.

  44. So this genius says we should let the likes of Al-Qaeda and ISIS have a free-run on the Interwebs to spread their propaganda, and keep claiming victory? On the VERY PLATFORM the great white men built?

    Bah…! This is why Libertarians are even more deluded than Liberals.

    At least “Cons” are honest about their nomenclature, unlike these 2.°

Comments are closed.