If You Still Wondered Whether the NYT Actually Reports News . . .
. . . I think you can stop wondering.
Remember Cliven Bundy – that dipstick in Nevada who got local militias to side with him after he refused to pay his legally-obligated grazing fees for 20 years and was being kicked off his Federal leased land? The media – specifically, the NYT – dragged up some quotes from an interview with Bundy that made him look damn near like a KKK Kleagle.
Well, I’m shocked, shocked. Seems like what Bundy said was actually very selectively quoted. Large portions of the interview were omitted.
The complete pertinent portion of the interview transcript is quoted here. It tells a very different story. Bundy’s actual remarks clearly indicate he’s not a blatant racist – and that he neither advocates nor wants to return to the “bad old days” of institutional racism.
In short, the NYT spun the hell out of the story to make Bundy appear to be a blatant racist. In reality, he doesn’t appear to be a racist at all.
Look, I think Bundy is a fool; IMO, he’s just trying to take something to which he no longer has any legal right. He’s also IMO conned a huge number of other fools into buying his BS and supporting him. He doesn’t deserve support; he needs to pay what he owes and comply with the law – whether he agrees with it or not.
And he certainly could have phrased his comments in that interview better. Some of the language is today offensive.
But the full text hardly shows what the NYT claims. The man is 67 years old, is naïve, and didn’t realize the mainstream media’s inherent bias and agenda. He assumed that the person to whom he was talking could be trusted, so he spoke honestly using plain language. The NYT took full advantage of that to make him look like a racist bastard virtually advocating a return to the “bad old days” via selective quotation, omission, and innuendo. The full transcript clearly shows that’s not the case.
In short: the NYT used a grain of truth and a ton of spin to send a message very different from reality. In effect, they lied in the most effective way possible: by selectively using tiny bits of the truth taken out of context to send an overall message that is false.
I think we all know precisely why the NYT did this. I won’t bother to restate the obvious.
Significantly, most of the rest of the media bought the NYT’s lie – hook, line, and sinker. Fact check, anyone?
Sheesh. Maybe the NYT should change their masthead motto from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “All the spin that helps our cause.” Afterwards, at least that much of what they print would be true.
They won’t, of course. But IMO they damn well should.
Category: Liberals suck, Media
Hondo, I think you’re missing an important point in this whole affair. What garnered support for Mr. Bundy’s plight was not the issue of whether or not he actually owed the grazing fees but the heavy-handed response of BLM. Americans saw federal agents tricked out in all their SWAT team finery employing automatic weapons, armored vehicles, dogs, Tasers, etc, against other Americans and said to themselves,”This is not the way our federal government should be treating this man and his family, regardless of the legal issues.” TAH has served as a forum on many occasions for the discussion of this growing militarization of not just law enforcement agencies but of bureaucratic agencies who have no business getting involved in the physical enforcement of their endless regulatory oppression of the public. There are growing millions of Americans who see our federal government behaving in such an authoritarian manner who are slowly coming to the conclusion that this does not bode well for the nation’s future. People are finally beginning to ask why is it that every podunk town has to have an MRAP and a Swat team and why does every federal agency need an autonomous enforcement arm? As for Bundy being naive, don’t make the classic blunder of equating slow-speaking with slow-thinking. My wife’s family were all West Texas ranchers who spoke like Bundy but you sure didn’t want to underestimate their intelligence. Eloquent, no, Bundy is not, but the man has been battling the federal bureaucracy for decades, and while losing in court, he has still been able to continue his ranching operations until recently. Had he not had some sympathy from local law enforcement, that would not have been possible. And that “recently” bears some examination as well. Doesn’t it strike you as a bit too much of a coincidence that BLM upped the ante and introduced armed agents within a few days after Harry Reid’s former staffer became the new director of BLM? And that Reid has taken such a personal interest in this confrontation, labeling Bundy’s supporters as domestic terrorists? I don’t presume to know Reid’s… Read more »
Exactly the point. Bundy may not be the perfect poster child, but the real issue was the Feds sending an army to collect a debt.
Poetrooper: actually, I think you missed the entire point of my article.
My beef here is with the NYT for (1) purporting to report news, while (2) actually reporting falsehood as fact.
Re: Bundy. IMO, the Federal government would be completely right to confiscate everything he owns – including his cattle. He’s been repeatedly slam-dunked in the courts, and if I recall correctly now owes in excess of $1M to the Federal government in delinquent grazing fees/fines/interest.
He’s repeatedly thumbed his nose at the law, refused to comply, and refused to pay valid assessments. He’s done so over a 20 year period.
After 20 years, enough is freaking enough.
Were I running things at the BLM, I’d get a court-order seizing his cattle and land/residence as payment from the land. I would then take ownership of both, and evict Bundy. If Bundy then chose to initiate violence, well, that would be his doing.
Let me be crystal clear here: I do not personally agree with the law in force here. I think the EPA and enviro-whackos have run amok to the detriment of the rest of us, and we’re about to start paying hugely for that idiocy.
But what you appear to be advocating here is allowing Bundy – and by extension, anyone doing what you think is OK – to selectively pick and choose which laws they will and will not obey. Sorry, but I cannot sign on for that.
Anarchy is just as bad as dictatorship. I have no desire to live in a place where either is the norm.
Thank you Hondo. You have said this the best way possible and is the MAIN reason why I have shunned the so called III/Militia movements.
Yes, our government is become to big for it’s britches, but what a lot of people don’t seem to grasp, is what would the effects of another armed conflict as severe as the war between the states be. This nation would not survive another civil war no matter which side won.
Oh, for all those that think the BLM backed down because of the show of force that Bundy’s backer’s displayed is deluded. The main reason that the BLM backed down was because they could not find any auction house with in economic distance that would accept the Bundy branded cattle.
Hondo, I should have prefaced my comment with a statement that while I fully understand and agree with your rightful condemnation of the NYT, etc, etc. Mea culpa for not making myself clear. But that’s not what I was addressing. Your use of the term “fools” for those who are supportive of Bundy was what led me to point out that it is not the legality issue that so many Americans are concerned with but the heavy-handedness of a militarized federal bureaucracy in dealing with him. That, not whether or not Bundy is right or wrong was my point. As John Robert Mallernee comments, Waco was on many minds across this country when these Bundy videos began airing. Perhaps if a few hundred concerned citizens had flocked to the compound in Waco to demonstrate their opposition to federal overreach, that tragedy could have been averted. Every time I think back to that tragic day, I see in my mind a contrite Bill Clinton sucking in his lower lip and muttering, “We had to burn the children to death to save them from further abuse.” One other point: most of the information we have about the Bundy situation comes to us via the mainstream media, much of which slavishly takes its lead from the very same New York Times you are castigating for reportorial dishonesty. Even conservative media too often tend to follow the lead of the Times as FOX News, the mother ship of conservative reporting so clearly demonstrated this week. O’Reilly, Hannity and even the much brighter Megyn Kelly all ran with that NYT quote without any verification. Again, I agree wholeheartedly with you on the Times. Yet it is precisely because of their demonstrated dishonesty, that I don’t think any of us have the whole truth on this matter. And as I stated earlier, there are just a few too many coincidences surrounding this story to allow me to accept the media version. While I do believe in coincidences, when they involve a demonstrably dishonest and greedy weasel like Harry Reid in multiple aspects, my bullshit antennae go… Read more »
Poetrooper: we’ll have to agree to disagree, amigo. IMO, anyone supporting Bundy is indeed being shortsighted and foolish. A society has two choices in how it operates. It can operate under some type of “rule of law”, or it can choose to allow some to ignore society’s rules. A society that operates by the rule of law has some process for making those rules – call them laws, taboos, norms, whatever – that all agree to live by. That is precisely what our Constitution prescribes: an agreed-to method for making those rules (laws) by which the members of American society will live. Societies that do not operate according to a rule of law generally are of two types. The first is a dictatorship of the ruling class, which make the laws according to their desires/whims and impose them on the remainder of society – with or without the remainder’s consent. The second is anarchy, where all rules/laws/norms are ignored and the strong do as they please at the expense of everyone else. Societies that live by the rule of law are, in general, reasonably orderly and respective of basic freedoms and rights. In contrast, societies that are autocratic or anarchistic typically pay little heed to the personal rights and freedoms of any but the ruling class (which, in an anarchistic society, are the strong). In both, the general public gets the short end of the stick. What Bundy’s supporters are advocating is nothing more than allowing selective obedience to the law by everyone on a case-by-case basis – or, in other terms, a transition to an anarchistic society. Sorry, that path is not one I can countenance. And please spare me the argument that Bundy’s “rights” are somehow being violated here. Bundy has no “right” to the public land he’s currently unlawfully occupying and working; he doesn’t own it. Further: any such rights he formerly might have had ended in 1993, when he ceased paying his lawful grazing fees for the use of public land and began ignoring new regulations for the use of that land simply because he did… Read more »
The Grey lady’s name ought to be changed to “PRAVDA!” and all her staff forced to wear Che t-shirts. That, at least, would be honesty in reporting then, I support Bundy in his actions. The BLM is using the grazing excuse in order to attempt to seize the rest of his land, and esppecially to seize his herd and put him out of business. Why? you ask……. well, it started with the BLM issuing a “finding” that the desert tortoise was endangered by all those cows. That flies in the face of actual evidence which shows the numbers of tortoises increasing over the past century, all the while, the entire time, cattle grazing in close proximity to them. To protect those tortoises, the BLM rounded up over 800. Suddenly faced with budget cuts, the BLM has destroyed at least half of them, saying they can’t afford to feed & house them. Yet, they could have just returned them to the land. So why the hand-wringing? It’s never been about the tortoises. It’s about the land and who gets to do what with it. That who, is a Chinese firm, represented by Rory Reid, the son of Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader. The what, is a large commercial solar power facility which that Chinese company wants to build. Also of interest, another part of that whole web of deceit & corruption, is that the BLM is headed by one of Harry Reid’s former staffers. Once the back story becomes clearer, we can see what’s really going on: Corruption involving a serving Senate Majority Leader, his son, a former staffer, and a foreign corporation. I’m willing to overlook the fees Bundy owns in order to take on this perversion of justice. And seriously, the feds can find the forces and money to strongarm a single man and his family, yet can’t find the money to seal the boorder with Mexico? yeah. I’ll stand with Bundy on this one. And as for the NYT, you have to KNOW that that whole editing was done at the request of Harry Reid, et al, in… Read more »
WELL SAID TIM. AGREE 100%
The court case against Bundy has been going on for years. He has lost at every turn and while denying the rule of law when it goes against him, he wants some law he feels applies to take over.
The Harry Reid / Reid’s son / Chinese solar plant issue is non-existent. First, the plan was shelved long before this took place and secondly, the proposed plant was over 60 miles away on land that Bundy did not graze upon.
While Bundy has claimed his family has been on the land since the 1870’s, records show that his parents bought the ranch in 1948.
Bundy’s statements on negros / blacks show an amazing lack of historical knowledge. Does he really think that people were better off when they were prevented by law from learning to read and write? Does he really think that people were better off when humans were bred as cattle? Does he really think that people were better off when disagreement or not working hard enough to suit someone was met with the lash? Does he really think that people were better off when fathers, mothers,sons and daughters could be sold to someone?
Bundy may not be a racist, but he is woefully ignorant of history.
I find it sad that a man who wants to base his claim on the land on the history of the land not only is terribly ignorant of the history of the country, but also has lied about the history of the land.
While I believe some of the issues this event have raised are troublesome, I will stand against those issues in spite of Cliven Bundy, and not because of him.
If you are going to drink the left’s kool-aid, you should probably be taking small sips and not big gulps.
I know you put yourself out as a conservative, but you’re ceratinly shilling for the left and the rest of the dark side when you publish their talking points.
If only I were able, I’d jump in my pickup truck and drive out to Nevada to stand with Cliven Bundy.
Why?
Because I very VIVIDLY remember the Waco Massacre and Ruby Ridge.
On Thursday 07 December 1967, I publicly swore a solemn oath before our Almighty God that I would support and defend our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America, an eternally sacred oath which is still in effect.
As citizens of the republic, we are bound by our Christian duty to disobey those laws which infringe on our unalienable rights, are immoral, and are not constitutional.
The tyranny of this government MUST be stopped!
Oh, by the way, here is the URL of the Bundy Ranch, so you can go right to the horse’s mouth – – – :
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/
To better comprehend our motivation, I encourage everyone to further investigate the chosen “Mormon” faith of Cliven Bundy and myself, as members of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints, as our reverence towards our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America is a basic principle within our belief.
Also, our Book of Mormon teaches that America is the “Promised Land”, colonized by exiles from the Tower of Babylon and exiles from ancient Israel, where Jesus Christ, after He was resurrected, taught, and where the lost tribes of the House of Israel are destined to gather once again.
Here are the pertinent URLs:
https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng
http://www.mormon.org/
So, you see, America and our Constitution are pretty darn special to us “Mormon” folk.
I suspect the truth with the Bundy issue lies somewhere in the middle. He has a few hundred cattle but supposedly owes $1M. Knowing the bureaucracy that’s probably mostly interest and late fees. The feds were willing to spend another $1M to round up said cattle, per an article in the WAPO. Guess they’ll tack that on the Bundy bill that likely will never be paid.
Now the NYT and the MSM selectively edit an interview to smear Bundy and erode support.
Not siding with Bundy, but definitely not siding with Reid and the feds either.
Allegedly, Mr. Bundy “owes” some $300k in fees. The rest has been suddenly slapped upon his a “fines & interest” by the BLM without any supporting paperwork or notice of regulation(s) or even right to appeal.
It’s just another example of the federal government putting it’s thumb on the scale to weight it’s version of events.
That depends on whether the debt was incurred incrementally or over time, AW1 Tim.
Assuming the interest due is equal to Federal T-bill rates ( http://www.multpl.com/interest-rate/table ), $300k owed in 1993 is about $755k today due to unpaid interest and compounding alone. If it’s T-bill rate + 1%, it would be $955k – again, solely due solely to unpaid interest and compounding.
I’m personally guessing that penalties for late payment are a big chunk of the outstanding amount Bundy owes. But without looking up the facts, we don’t know. And in any case, even if the amount was accrued incrementally, compound interest on the unpaid balance has added a huge amount. Bundy has no one to blame but himself for the latter.
Here’s the URL for yet another statement in support of Cliven Bundy – – – ;
http://theblacksphere.net/2014/4/black-marine-clive-bundy-no-racist
What bothers me about the whole story is that folks keep saying that the government “owns” the land. Actually, the government doesn’t own it. They manage the land for “the people”, hence the name Bureau of Land Management. The land belongs to “the people” and Bundy owes fees to “the people” not the government. Of course, the government will spend the resulting payment however it wants, but, then, it’s not really their money, anyway. Yeah, I know, it’s all semantics, and it really has nothing to do with the case, but I’m just troubled by the language, whereby folks are willing to concede that the government “owns” the land we’re talking about here.
Carry on.
This is a little off subject but does anyone else wish they were a fly on the ranch wall?
Their has got to be some just incredible PX rangers, Embellishers, Rambo’s and other fakes all in one spot.
“Because.”
That’s why.
I have a few questions:
1. How much of the land that the Federal Government “owns” in Nevada was originally Bundy land?
2. How could a federal judge be objective in all the Bundy cases?
3. Would the federal judge not have a vested interest in siding with the Federal Government since he/she is employed by the Federal Government?
All of you who have been condemning Cliven Bundy and casually disregarding the possibility of heavy, Washington-based, political influence in this situation need to watch a replay of Judge Janine’s Saturday night show.
In her opening monologue, this very experienced investigator and prosecutor lays it out, play by play, how Harry Reid is the manipulator behind this whole damned mess. Those of you who dismissed this possibility because Harry’s Chinese friends were building their solar project sixty miles away may be surprised to learn that it was Bundy’s grazing area that was selected to be the “mitigation” area for the Chinese solar project area.
Because the Chinese solar project would endanger the desert tortoise, another area of equal size and topography had to be designated as a tortoise refuge. Guess whose grazing area was picked to be the mitigation area?
I told you readers here there was more to this issue than was being reported in the leftist media. A small suggestion:
NEVER EVER BELIEVE WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA FEEDS YOU, ESPECIALLY THE NEW YORK TIMES!
If this is the extent of Pirro’s “investigation” skills, she needs to retire.
If she wants to maintain that this was a land grab by Harry Reid for a Chinese Solar plant, how does she explain that the project was cancelled in 2012?
Secondly, the idea of the land being used as some sort of “mitigation area” simply means that the land may not have the same development on it. If there was going to be a solar plant built 60 miles away (and some accounts have it even further) the only thing that would have to “mitigate” the impact on the environment would be that a solar plant not be built on the land in dispute. Cows would still be able to graze upon the mitigated land.
While I can appreciate the idea that you want to support Bundy and despise the BLM, it seems clear to me that this is a case where both parties are wrong.
Yes, the BLM acted in a heavy handed manner. But Bundy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand upon and has been shown to be someone who isn’t that thoughtful and has a problem with the truth.
If you want to say the BLM lies and all that, I won’t disagree with you. It just means that the BLM and Bundy are twin sons of different mothers.
I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy? You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom Even with the qualifier that precedes those words I’m confident the majority of the black population in the US (who don’t receive government subsidies) are thrilled to know that Mr Bundy wonders if they were better of as slaves without rights rather than being free and receiving government subsidies or that being freed results in less freedom than when they were forced to work in the fields for no pay and if they resisted being beaten to death was acceptable as they weren’t considered humans equal to white folk. That might not be what his intent was but it smells like a racist turd from here… I understand he was trying to state that the current federal subsidy program has broken the black family, and I would agree with him as I have often made that point here. I would argue that his choice of words is not only poor, but an example of his thought process regarding blacks. Those words sure as hell are not indicative of a man who respects black Americans as his equals, as pondering how slavery might have been a better deal than welfare is rather distasteful on every level. It’s always interesting to see what a criminal like Mr. Bundy thinks about the world, after all a man who refuses to obey the law and then resists the government with weapons drawn has every right to speak his mind. I wonder how many black Americans would have received the same level of deference from the government as Mr. Bundy has received. I’d be willing to bet the answer is close to zero. A discussion on what in our society that has led to blacks being disproportionately represented in the ranks of poverty stricken Americans can’t be taken seriously when the proponent wonders aloud if slavery was the better option. While the NYT has not been… Read more »