Boston Globe

From iGeek
Revision as of 12:48, 6 November 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
One Redeeming Quality.png
One Redeeming Quality.png

The Boston Globe was founded in 1872 was originally controlled by Irish Catholic interests before being sold to Charles H. Taylor, and then sold to The New York Times in 1993 for $1.1 billion. Where it subsequently lost 94% of its value, and was sold to John W. Henry (Red Sox Owner) for $70 million.

Rather than being a neutral Journalistic source, the former editorial page editor Renée Loth described The Globe as having "a long tradition of being a progressive institution, and especially on social issues", but did qualify it with "We are a lot more nuanced and subtle than that liberal stereotype does justice to". Yet, they endorsed Hillary Clinton, started a campaign against Trump for calling out bad journalism, and basically taking more than a few bad and far left positions. They descended from being a purveyor of news to progressive activism, and since progressives can't get what they want by telling the truth, they are not about one-side spin, lies of omission, and a series of embarrassing gaffe's that always lean to the far left.


Globe : 7 items

2019.04.11 Food Tampering Editorial - A Boston Globe columnist (Luke O'Neil) called for waiters to piss in the food of Trump administration officials, in the name of tolerance. (Removed after backlash). To quote, “As for the waiters out there, I’m not saying you should tamper with anyone’s food, as that could get you into trouble. You might lose your serving job. But you’d be serving America. And you won’t have any regrets years later.” It's not just the authors bad judgement but the editorial staff, and attitude that it is symptomatic of, that's the real hate.

2019.06.29 Andy Ngo Assault - The sub-editor and photojournalist for Quillette (Andy Ngo), spent the evening in the hospital with a brain bleed (and caustic burns) after being attacked by antifa during a protest in Oregon. The reason for the assault? The left-wing thought-police felt the gay son of Vietnamese immigrants should be hit with bricks and caustic \"milkshakes\" because he once wrote an article that explained England was becoming more Muslim and less tolerant, or he was photographing the violence of the Anti-American left. Some in the left wing media (NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vice), are claiming he's not a journalist (despite being one, and being published), and saying he deserved it (cheering on the violence and opposition to free speech), because that's easier than questioning their sides motivates/actions. Twitter is banning people / de-verifying those who expose who did it: (@Lucet_Veritas, @Rambobiggs).

2019.07.31 One Redeeming Quality? -
One Redeeming Quality.png
One of the perfect examples of FakeNews and the left losing their mind, and causing distrust and contempt by their informed readers is an OpEd in the Boston Globe asking whether Trump has a single redeeming quality, and answering "no". Which shows how out of touch the author is, and more than that, the Globe Editorial staff to think that this was News and to fail the fact checking on the error ridden hate-piece. 55 different lies is the best that the Globe can manage as impartial journalism?

Break up Google? -
Should Google be broken up? My Libertarian PoV is to use that as the tool of last resort, and I don't think we've tried the others yet. But I do think there's plenty of room to make sure they're following certain rules. If they're a communication platform (absolved from liability of what people post), then they can only curate for crimes, not their own bias. If they want to curate, then they're an editorial (publishing) platform, and they should be subject to liability for everything they get wrong and it hurts people. Pick one. But my view is in the minority, here's a lot more on folks that think they should be broken up and regulated (even far left outfits that like their bias):
  • New York Times, of course doesn't care about their actions against conservatives, their case against Google is based on the businesses they've rolled over and competition they've crushed, that their scale makes them ripe. (They also littered it with the usual leftist fallacies and falsehoods about Standard Oil, and the imaginary heroism of big government protecting us from runaway corporatism). [1]
  • The Guardian argues as most socialist outfits do, that the public should control the means of production and information. Since they acquired other companies, and added value to the public, they are bad, and must be owned by the masses. [2]
  • USAToday takes a surprising direction that since they're big, powerful, and Sundar (their CEO) was completely wrong in firing James Damore (which I agree with), that Sundar must be fired, and we can never trust the company to do self-driving cars or other things, until they're broken up. (Seem a little extreme to me). [3]
  • Boston Globe (Editorial Board), since they're 90 percent of all Internet searches, they are a monopoly. Of course that's not a very broad thinking view, since more searches are being done mobile, targeted product searching, social media, or voice, which aren't counted in those specs, and Google is losing power, not gaining it (in those other areas). As well as being a monopoly isn't a problem, abusing the power or being anti-competitive is. So the article seems illogical to me, because it's saying breakup for the sake of breaking them up (begging the question fallacy), not because of what they do that's wrong, or what breaking them up would do to make things better. [4]

Global Cooling Scare.jpg
Global Cooling Scare - The left/media/polemics of today will pretend this didn't exist, or it was just a few outlets that were claiming it, and there was no science or momentum behind it. That's a lie. Paul R. Ehrlich, Watermelon environmentalist of the 1960's, not only wrote the discredited The Population Bomb, but he also started another Tragedy of the commons based chicken little disaster: the Global Cooling Scare. In 1968 he claimed fossil fuels had raised CO2 levels 15% which was causing clouds to block out the sun and causing the global cooling they had been observing (a minute fraction of a degree). He was wrong, warming had caused CO2 to go up (not fossil fuels), and it wasn't causing the cooling. But all the watermelon sources bought in: NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, NYT, Science, CIA, and so on. We needed big government authoritarianism to fix it, or we we're doomed. This was all the rage until something bad happened... and they realized that despite the 40 year drop in temperatures (due to mans minuscule contribution to CO2), that we were actually warming again. Reverse engines, nothing to see here. Time for the next theory/excuse why we needed centralized Marxism to cure what ails us: this time it was Global Warming. (And when that paused, they changed the term to Climate Change: so that they could use up or down trends as an excuse to prove themselves right).

Globe corrects falacious story about DailyWire - Only after community pressure did the Boston Globe correct a malicious slander about Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire an an ‘Alt-Right Outpost’. Ben Shapiro is Jewish. The Daily Wire is a moderate right website and news aggregator.

Steve Bannon -
If you believe the left, Steve Bannon is a homophobic, racist, anti-semite, xenophobe. Or an accomplished naval officer, with two Masters Degrees, an investment banking background, an unapologetic pro-Israel and pro-liberty CEO of (if you believe the facts). I have found no evidence of the former, though there's certainly more complexity and some things to not love about his political positions. So there's the caricature I usually hear on the likes of NPR or in most of the media... but then places like The Boston Globe did a shockingly fair piece on him. I have never gotten an answer why a racist, anti-semite would have been the editor for Breitbart: founded by Andrew (a Jew) to rebut the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel agenda in the mainstream media. Or why many Jews on staff would defend such an imagined bigot. But when it comes to hating right wingers, things don't need to make sense for the left.


📚 References