Here's some examples of their bias: 9 items
- 2019.06.18 Concentration Camps - Our favorite dimwit (AOC) claimed that Trump's America is running concentration camps, with direct comparisons to the Nazi's. This immediately polarized the rational against the Democrats and their media (her water carriers). Moderate Jewish organizations thought the comparison was absurd and said so. But the alt-left came running to her defense, to try to parse words and say that technically they are "concentration camps", in the same way that calling someone a faggot is accusing them of being a bundle of sticks. She not only doesn't back down, but double's down and starts chucking Gitmo and anything else that might trigger the left to try to dig out... but just kept digging deeper. The left does NOT get to pretend the OTHER side is lowering the town or divisive, then go reductio ad Hitler in the next breath. At least not without looking like flaming hypocrites.
- 2019.04.12 Some People - Ilhan Omar was on video saying the terrorist supporting, anti-semitic CAIR, was founded because they recognized "Some people did something", meaning Islamic Terrorists took down the Twin Towers on 9/11. Fair was actually founded nearly a decade earlier. President Trump tweeted the video because it shows the truth about the left's PC apologism for 9/11. The left couldn't argue the facts, so they put their lie-machine in overdrive. WaPo FakeNews'ed by trying to claim that Bush said it too... before we'd identified the source of the attack (as if the context was the same). Atlantic tried to deflect for her. Other operatives for the DNC pretended that Trump was inciting violence or islamaphobia by showing the video of Ilhan's own words. This is moronic, the Republicans love her! She's the poster-child for stupid, racist (anti-Semitic), Politically Correct terrorist apologism. They need her to run-against in 2020. They're more likely to hire a security detail for her, than wish any harm on her. But still, Dems started a "#IStandWithIlhan", and cries about poor her, for having her own message magnified. The fake pearl clutching is an insult to our intelligence, and is obvious gaslighting.
- 2019.03.22 Mueller Report - The Mueller Report is out. I don't care if you like/dislike President Trump, I care whether people will defend the truth or perpetuate a lie. Soon we will be able to read the full report, but the summary is a smackdown: (a) there was no hint at collusion by Trump or his team, in fact they rebuffed attempts by the Russians. (b) without collusion there couldn't have been obstruction, but even if there had been, Trump wasn't close to obstruction (c) the media narrative has been a fraud (d) the media wasted 2,284 minutes, and 533,074 articles (245 million responses) to coverage of the fake narrative. The media doesn't admit their mistake and apologize to Trump and the public are not journalists following the facts, but polemics mad that someone shined the light of truth on their deception. And right on cue, a bunch of FakeNews, Democrat politicians, and Hollywood sheep try to spin this as it, "stops short of exonerating on obstruction", or shifting the narrative to Mueller's competence, Trump's guilt on something else, or anything other than their 2-year fraud. But all the outlets that championed it as the end of Trump, or shown for frauds. Expecially when they won't just apologize.
- 2019.02.06 Assassination "Joke" - Jemele Hill (of ESPN and the Atlantic) made a tweet (now deleted) saying AOC should interrupt Trump's next State of the Union address, with the following quote, "GETCHO HAND OUT MY POCKET". This was what one of Malcom-X's killers said before murdering him. Jemele deleted the tweet and apologized, but few believe it was a joke.
- 2018.10.03 Cruelty is the point - If you want an example of the blatant partisan bias (and the stupidity) of the The Atlantic, this article, "'The Cruelty Is the Point: President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear'" is a perfect example. The fact that a staff writer could submit this without being immediately fired, let alone that it would be published, ends any pretense as a credible publication. This attack on Trump on their supporters is devoid of historical accuracy and does what it accuses the other side of: demonizes the opposition. Can you ever imagine them running the corollary about how we know that minimum wage, sensationalize racial divisions, or calling the other side bad names shuts down progress and polarizes us, so the left does it because they are vicious assholes? If you can't, then it proves my point that the Atlantic is not a serious publication, but a hate pamphlet for the DNC.
- 2017.05.25 NATO - Trump criticized NATO (as he has during his campaign) for bearing the brunt of NATO costs (true), and intimidates them into living up to their obligations and coming up with more money. The leftists, their Press and their fact checkers all pretend this is end of days and proof that:
- Demanding more defense spending (against Russia) makes him a puppet of Russia.
- That him claiming the U.S. pays 70-90% of NATO is a lie. It's true... depending on what you mean.
- He "shoved" Montenegro Prime Minister.
- That he's alienating our allies and going to break up NATO.
- A year+ later, the head of NATO admits that his tough talk got NATO contributions up by over $100B, and it is stronger than ever, thanks to Trump.
- 2016.11.01 Greenville, Mississippi black church fire - Right before the election, a Greenville, Mississippi church (Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church) was set on fire and spray painted with the words “Vote Trump”, by Andrew McClinton. Of course all the leftist FakeNews outlets (Atlantic, NYT, CNN, SPLC) ran sensational headlines about how bad Trump and his white supremacist supporters were to foster such hate. Only it came out later that it was done by one of the churches black congregants, who hated Trump and it was a false flag effort. Many quietly updated their story, or ran a retraction a month after the damage had been done. SPLC left it on their hate map to mislead the public about how bad the problem is.
The reason for the firing was elucidated in the memo: his views on abortion (which the editorial staff was aware of before they hired him), was that of science: and that a fetus is a human life. His beliefs were of the side that killing a fetus was tantamount to murder (and that abortionists should be punished accordingly): a view far to the right of my own. That view is no more morally offensive than the other extreme that says full term abortions of viable babies is nothing but eliminating bio-waste. That latter is the view which plenty of staffers at the Atlantic hold, including Jessica Valenti, who also writes for the Washington Post, and The Guardian US, without any concerns of retribution.
For his callous and violent remarks (that abortionists should be punished), made years before the hiring, Gates claimed that Kevin Williamson needed to be let go. While the Atlantic has no problems paying the salary of Ta-Nehisi Coates, who compared a police officer who shot a Howard University student to the 9/11 terror attacks, or when contemplating income inequality between Blacks and Whites in America he opined longingly that such corrections "don’t tend to happen peacefully". And in response to riots in Ferguson he defended the violence with, “What clearly cannot be said is that violence and nonviolence are tools, and that violence—like nonviolence—sometimes works.” He sounds frighteningly identical to the same things that the Alt-Right (Richard Spencer) claims, but since it's from an alt-left view, the Atlantic doesn't want to condemn or fire, they want to ponder the intellectual nuances of the charges.
So the hypocrisy of tolerating one extreme, while being intolerant of the other, is something that Gates (editor) lost sight of. Or just never really cared about.
So what did we learn?
I learned that while the Atlantic’s founding motto was, “Of no party or clique”, that dream is long dead. We also learn that anywhere that progressives get a voice, they will ruin it for others. They have the tolerance of complete intolerance: there is no party or clique at the Atlantic, because like California, Nazi Germany, or anywhere else the progressives rule, they demand complete and utter subjugation to the will of the collective: thus they are not "of" the clique, they are the clique.