New York Times Is Pro Censorship

Propaganda organ tries to paint Missouri v. Biden as a Trump operation

One of the many bizarre phenomena I’ve observed in recent years is the transformation of previously moderate liberals into fervent advocates of War, Censorship, and Big Pharma.

This metamorphosis has been especially notable among Baby Boomers who, just a few years ago, would have never countenanced such views. Occasionally I encounter them at a cocktail party and am stunned by some of the things they say about current affairs.

These are the same people who were highly critical of the Iraq War in 2003, were fastidious about organic food and “wellness” instead of Big Pharma health “solutions,” and who regarded free speech as a core liberal value. What happened to them? What can account for their abandonment of their previous worldview?

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of these people have long been avid New York Times readers, and more or less regard the paper’s reporting as gospel. Judith Miller’s bogus reporting on the Iraq War did not shake their faith in the paper.

This probably accounts for much of their strange metamorphosis, which has largely been accomplished by the New York Times successfully framing most of its propaganda as serving the righteous fight against the evil Donald Trump and his evil “far right” followers.

President Trump is the object of what may be the greatest scapegoating propaganda operation since the Third Reich. If, by some miracle, Trump discovered the panacea to cancer, his obsessed critics would rather die of cancer than acknowledge that he’d done something of value.

Thus, when the Times sets out to convince formerly good liberals that censorship is a good thing, all it has to do is frame today’s free speech advocates as people who are in league with Donald Trump.

As Matt Taibbi just reported:

In advance of oral arguments tomorrow in the Supreme Court for Murthy v. Missouri, formerly Missouri v. Biden, the New York Times and authors Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers wrote a craven and dishonest piece called, “How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation.”

The Times implies both the Twitter Files reports and my congressional testimony with Michael Shellenberger were strongly influenced by former Trump administration official Mike Benz, whose profile occupies much of the text. Benz is described as a purveyor of “conspiracy theories, like the one about the Pentagon’s use of Taylor Swift,” that are “talking points for many Republicans.” They quote Shellenberger as saying meeting Benz was the “Aha moment,” in our coverage, and the entire premise of the piece is that Benz and other “Trump allies” pushed Michael, me, and the rest of the Twitter Files reporters into aiding a “counteroffensive” in the war against disinformation, helping keep social media a home for “antidemocratic tactics.”

Taibbi’s piece prompted me to read the Times report, which is pure humbug. Unfortunately, I fear that the people who continue to believe in such crass propaganda are too brainwashed to be helped.

Those who would like to learn more about Missouri v. Biden (which will now get its day in the Supreme Court) may enjoy my interview with one of the plaintiffs—the eminently reasonable and cultivated Dr. Aaron Kheriaty.