Always hostile to conservatives, the New York Times is so besotted with Trump hate that it is resorts to reverse racism. How then, to treat the Facebook censorship of two conservative black women who support Trump? With disdain, of course.
Ann of Althouse (go there, she needs the traffic), neatly encapsulates something that leapt from the pages of Sunday’s Times:
The NYT explains Diamond and Silk to its readers as “a modern-day minstrel show” aimed at “white conservatives”…
It is a process of biased journalism called “stacking.” Under the thin veneer of objectivity, the biased journalist elides the purported thesis — in this case, censorship — with a single paragraph buried in the middle of the article.
The sistersreceived a note from Facebook on April 5 that said the company determined the content on their page to be “unsafe to the community.” They said the note, along with a decline in traffic to their page, was proof that Facebook has an anti-conservative bias.
Next crooked reporter’s trick: trivialize the censorship by casting it as merely partisan.
Their Facebook woes have been heavily covered on Fox News, and their case was taken up by Republican lawmakers during the hearings.
Which is why the Times can no longer ignore the story. It’s all over cable. The obvious question is why that censorship is not “heavily covered” by the New York Times? Why has not its editorial pages “taken up” the case? Hold not thy breath.
Time to play the race card
“Do Diamond and Silk have critics?” the suddenly inquiring mind (singular) at the Times asks, unhelpfully. You can be certain as a tenured sociology professor they have critics! And we’re going to quote them!
Cue the identity politics scolds. Unleash the race baiters:
They have been criticized for supporting an administration deeply unpopular with African-Americans …
Don’t we know all black people think alike? Those who deviate are deemed “inauthentic”?
Time to play the gender card on top of the race card:
… and [of] being unrepresentative of African-American women
The Times employs another trick in the prejudiced journalist’s kit bag: the selective quote. Do they quote First Amendment academics like Alan Dershowitz or Floyd Abrams? Are you kidding?
NO! The biased news purveyor locates “an Artist And Activist” (need we say more?) to utter the “money quote.” Diamond and Silk, says the Artist and Activist, stoop to “stereotypical images of black women.” An Artist And Activist certainly would know!
Two well dressed, articulate women? One of whom appears to favor cabernet sauvignon in a tall-stemmed wine glass? Against a backdrop of a well appointed home? That’s the kind of stereotype we like here at the Manor.
Undeterred, the Artist And Activist describes the two women as “a modern-day minstrel show.”
Mammy, can ya hear me callin’?