Posted on 02/25/2020 3:22:32 AM PST by Kaslin
A few weeks ago, I devoted my column to an article about me published in Newsweek under the headline "Conservative Radio Host Ridicules Anne Frank." As the full context of my comments in the video made clear, it was a lie.
To its credit, after its editor was notified of this fact, Newsweek changed the headline and made revisions to the article and issued a correction.
Since then, two more smears have been spread about me, one by an official at Purdue University and the other by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the major source of news in Canada.
The Jan. 21, 2020, issue of The Exponent, the Purdue University student newspaper, published the following in a story about John Gates, Purdue's newly appointed vice provost for diversity and inclusion: "John Gates has seen quite distinct viewpoints at Purdue, even in his first week at Purdue in early 2019. When he attended a Turning Point event that Dennis Prager spoke at, he noted that he was one of three black people in the room.
"'His central thesis was as follows: Diversity is bad. Every dollar spent on diversity is a dollar wasted,' Gates said. 'He said slavery was not bad. In fact, every civilized nation was founded in slavery, and that blacks should just be happy to be in this country. And he got a rousing ovation.'"
A vice provost of Purdue University quoted me as saying, "slavery was not bad."
Needless to say, I never said anything remotely like that.
After mentioning this on my radio show, some of my listeners wrote to Gates, which prompted him to write to me -- not with a retraction or an apology but an invitation to have a chat.
I wrote vice provost Gates a letter, which began: "Dr. Gates:
"I am attaching eight video files of my speech at Purdue. See if you can find where I said, implied or hinted that slavery is not bad.
"Allow me to react to your invitation to chat over the phone. Had I, as a Jew, written in some publication that you said, 'the Holocaust wasn't bad,' and then invited you to have a chat, would you agree to do so? Or would you first demand that I retract such a vile smear of you?
"When you unequivocally retract in The Exponent what you said and apologize for saying it, I will be happy to chat with you. In fact, I will even invite you on to my national radio show."
I never received a response from Gates.
Then, about a week ago, on my radio show, I discussed the issue of private speech versus public speech, and the issue of character, using former President Harry Truman as an example of a good man who used foul language privately, specifically using "kike" when writing or talking about Jews, and the N-word when talking about blacks. A listener called to ask me why I could say "kike" but not the N-word. I told him that the left had rendered the N-word the only word unutterable in the English language, even when merely discussing it, as I was with regard to Truman. And, of course, I added that to ever refer to a black using the N-word is "despicable."
On Sunday, the CBC published an article headlined "It's 'idiotic you can't say the N-word,' says radio host Dennis Prager, soon to speak at Calgary conference."
The headline was an echo of the Newsweek headline, using an entirely out-of-context quote to make it sound as if I want to use the N-word in referring to blacks.
Now, why would the CBC bother writing about an American talk-show host, and how did it come up with this smear?
The answer to the first question is that the CBC, described to me by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a PragerU event as "to the left of MSNBC," wants to charge Canadian conservative organization The Manning Centre with inviting racist speakers. (I will be speaking in Ottawa at the Centre's annual conference next month.)
And how did the CBC come up with the phony headline and story? The author himself wrote how in his piece: from Media Matters for America, a left-wing site that each day distorts or lies about what conservatives say. The author never bothered to listen to my broadcast. He took what Media Matters wrote and recycled it.
So, then, why do left-wing media do this?
There are two major reasons.
First, truth is not a left-wing value. As I have said and written ever since studying communism and the left in graduate school at the Columbia University Russian Institute, truth is a liberal value and a conservative value, but it is not a left-wing value. However, destroying opponents by destroying their reputations is a left-wing value -- whether it's charging Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh with multiple rapes, preoccupying the country with the fake charge that Donald Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election, or the charges such as those made against me.
Second, smearing opponents is not only a left-wing value; it is the left's modus operandi. And the reason for that is: The left does not win through argument. It wins through smear. If you differ with the left, you are, by definition, sexist, racist, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, fascist and/or a hater. The proof? You cannot name a single opponent of the left who has not been so labeled.
Readers can fight back by contacting the president of Purdue, Mitch Daniels, at president@purdue.edu. Contacts from Purdue alumni would be particularly helpful. And readers can contact the CBC through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or an email to its ombudsman: ombud@cbc.ca
The CBC needs to change its headline and issue a correction, as Newsweek did. My email to the author of the article, in which I asked for these changes and explained the entire context, did not receive a reply. You can read the letter on my website and send it or link it to the CBC.
If good liberals and conservatives don't fight the left, truth loses. If truth loses, all is lost.
It's that simple.
Cause they are the true racists and suspect everyone else of the same.
Libel, which is civil, kind of does work that way.
Slander of public people had to be “malicious” to be actionable.
If a reporter can have plausible deniability, the reporter wins.
Maybe Trump can put this on his second term agenda.
I sent my email.
I thought Media Matters was David Brock? Not that Soros wouldn’t fund him, either.
They will not argue about principles, because they will lose. They destroy their opponents, and that is the principle they live by.
Simple ... pandering for votes.
Excellent point and factual
You could be right. But I heard Soros.
Probably Brock with Soros dirty money.
Media Matters was started by David Brock, you are correct
Because it is them that are the racists, but they won’t admit it.
“Lying Commie!”
Don’t waste space, breath, or give credence by responding. Counterattack accurately and put them on their heels.
I’m a white (mostly), traditional, middle-class, Christian man. Raised poor, worked through college, etc. Around 20 years ago, the then girlfriend (now, unfortunately, wife) of a friend branded me a racist in her mind. I met all the requirements. Except, of course, for there being any indication that I harbored ill will or thoughts regarding other races. Her daughter gave birth to a little girl. She was black. And we (the little girl and I) totally hit it off. We have all had that experience in which both the adult and the infant/toddler just naturally take to one another in a unique way. I was her favorite visitor, and once she learned to talk, we had some pretty wonderful conversations. Then one day her grandmother commented that it was so odd that she and I got along. “What do you mean?”, I asked, honestly. “Well, you’re conservative and white, and she’s black!” Oh boy.... And this woman honestly believes she is “woke” and the pinnacle of correct political behavior. She has since instilled in her granddaughter a hatred of white people. Except of course for immediate family. Racism held deeply, revealed....
Libel works. Devin Nunes, Covington kids, are and will be collecting millions.
Prager needs to follow suit.
Slander can also work. Plausible deniability is a burden of proof. And if, operative term ‘if’, CBC can dance around PD, the originator is implicated.
For example, if CBC points at Media Morons as the source, a slander action can be amended to include the Media clowns as a defendant.
The reason pols and pundits haven’t filed judicial actions is they are expensive and time consuming. And state media will pile on.
The game has changed. The Trump era, the era of the Great Awakening, the decline of the odious Brian Stelter fake news, all forces are making it ripe to sue these SOBs into oblivion.
If Dennis can’t or won’t afford the action, I think in this era he could easily raise funds using a gofundme page. There’s really no excuse these days. Trump, Nunes, and others have shown the way.
I automatically discount any accusations of racism or any other kind of phobia directed at anyone nowadays. The Left has lied so often in an effort to smear anybody they disagree with, that such accusations cannot be trusted. I will need to hear the person accused in his/her own words say something objectionable. Otherwise....BS.
Why the Left Calls Good People Racist
Because they know they are inferior.
Slander can work, yes.
But, no, it has nothing to do with the burden of proof.
If the target of the slander is a “public figure”, a reporter can say false things about said figure if the slander was not “malicious” — that is, it was not intentionally false.
Having plausible deniability makes proving the “malicious” element very difficult.
Now, that does not mean it is impossible.
(The Covington kid was not a public figure, which is why they settled.)
> “if the slander was not “malicious ...”
These days the malicious component is more than obvious and verifiable.
Pointing to another source for PD does work anymore. It only implicates the upstream party and renders the downstream party an accessory to the injury, culpable for not fact checking.
Your argument is dated, old. Times have changed. Public figures are now fighting back.
Exhibit 1: Devin Nunes
There are others.
The media scum will regret they were ever born into this new era.
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.