Posted on 04/21/2020 8:43:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
A New York Times reporter heavily implied Fox News had a hand in a Brooklyn man's untimely passing from the coronavirus. But the same reporter had her own skepticism about the virus.
A New York Times report on the tragic passing of a Brooklyn bar owner recklessly implied Fox News’s coverage of the Wuhan coronavirus contributed to the man’s untimely death. Worse yet, the report was authored by a woman who expressed skepticism over the magnitude of the crisis during the same time period her story faulted Fox.
In an April 18 story on the death of beloved Bay Ridge bar owner Joe Joyce, Times writer Ginia Bellafante included the following passage (emphasis added):
Early in March Sean Hannity went on air proclaiming that he didn’t like the way that the American people were getting scared ‘unnecessarily.’ He saw it all, he said, ‘as like, let’s bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.’
Eventually, Fox changed course and took the virus more seriously, but the Joyces were long gone by then. A spokeswoman for Fox News said that Mr. Hannity made statements taking the spread of coronavirus seriously early on, and that his comment about the public being scared by the coverage happened after the Joyces had left on their cruise.
“But the Joyces were long gone by then” is some heavy-handed narrative spinning. The obvious implication is that Fox’s alleged shift in coverage came too late to properly convey the threat to Joyce. According to Bellafonte, Joyce left New York for a cruise to Spain on March 1. “He watched Fox, and believed it was under control,’’ his daughter told the writer.
Here’s where the blame game takes an even more unfortunate turn. In the days before Joyce departed, as late as Feb. 27, Bellafonte herself was downplaying the gravity of the virus. In response to a post about market losses, the Times writer tweeted, “I fundamentally don’t understand the panic: incidence of the disease is declining in China. Virus is not deadly in vast majority of cases. Production and so on will slow down and will obviously rebound.”
I just happened to watch Hannity last night for the first time in a long time. Hannity eviscerated this beeotch. It’s just a shame that her readers, and those on the left will never see what Hannity laid out.
Even if they did, they wouldn’t believe it because it came from Hannity.
I think a lawsuit is in order here.
reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
I normally go to sleep when Hannity comes on, because I can’t keep my eyes open. I am used to getting up early out of habit (5:00 am) But last night I stayed up and watched his show.
?..???
?
It’s been a while since Psych 101... would this be projection of guilt or deflection of guilt? More bulldozing. Or bull something.
>>Even if they did, they wouldn’t believe it because it came from Hannity.
I think a lawsuit is in order here.<<
Maybe, but that will take forever. I have a different suggestion.
You know how the left wing press seems to always have its daily talking points? Rush is always revealing them with his montages that show half a dozen talking heads always using nearly the exact same phrasing.
Well, if ethical journalism is to ever survive (and that is definitely an open question right now), maybe ethical journalists should band together and come up with their own version of “talking points.”
Only instead of talking points, I would like to see “action points” where each day the group decides what action to take, and by “action” I mean who to concentrate the day’s interview on.
I’ll use this story as an example. You said, quite accurately, “It’s just a shame that her readers, and those on the left will never see what Hannity laid out.” Well, what if today’s action was to have that reporter receive 25-30 requests for interviews from the group of reporters? As you indicated, they live in a bubble. They never get that sort of pushback. But what if they did? What if they were forced to explain themselves, or at least to avoid 25 reporters, each calling several times a day until they got a response of some sort?
Might that not start to impress upon the worst of them that their bubble of approving friends has gotten a little too small? So, my suggestion: don’t sue them, challenge them to explain their decisions in multiple interviews. That might scare them more than any lawsuit because they are definitely not used to being challenged by their peers.
The problem? Maybe there aren’t enough ethical journalists left to pull this off. But I believe this could effect some change. It’s certainly worked for the left, with their daily talking points.
Steely Tom’s post was written in the Newspeak of Orwell’s 1984. Winston Smith’s job was to rewrite the news to reflect the current party line. doubleplusungood means “very, very bad”, “bb” means “Big Brother”, “unpersons” is someone whose memory is to be completely wiped out, as if he had never been born.
“The problem? Maybe there aren’t enough ethical journalists left to pull this off. “
Your plan is solid, and would be entertaining and educational for the masses. But, you identified the flaw. People working in the media today are activists and propagandists, and it appears they think that is what they should be doing.
Hopefully so.
These libtard journOlists needs to be held accountable.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
It’s sort of funny when a newspaper lady with (allegedly) 443 thousand copy circulation attacks a guy with 4 million viewers using a blatant lie, then he responds with the truth.
;-)
I think a lawsuit is in order here.
Indeed settlement should be 50% holdings of the New York Times.
That’s not the flaw; that’s the problem, obviously.
The real flaw would be that there aren’t any ethical journalists left at the national level. It would take at least a hundred or so and that might be a stretch.
Absolutely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.