In its Sunday edition, with the biggest readership of the week, the New York Times published an utterly baseless accusation:

The American Thinker falsely claimed that the [Fauci] email was evidence that he was part of a secret group who opposed Mr. Trump.

In other words, the newspaper did exactly what it purported this website did: "falsely claimed" something without a factual basis.  Moreover, in its online edition, the Times failed to link to the post in question so readers could see for themselves that the accusation was untrue.  

This libel comes as the latest in a series of mainstream media attacks on American Thinker over its critical coverage of Dr. Anthony Fauci, a presidential adviser on the coronavirus pandemic.

Background

Nine days ago, American Thinker published a blog post that I wrote, which included some information and context about the career of Anthony Fauci, M.D.  A follow-up blog post was published last Saturday.  In particular, I reviewed the growth of the enormous and outsized medical bureaucracy that grew up around the government's anti-HIV/AIDS effort that Dr. Fauci has led since the mid-1980s.  The article made no mention of, nor did it imply the existence of an alleged conspiracy on the part of Fauci or anyone else in President Trump's circle of medical advisers to seriously undermine the president's efforts to mitigate the problem of the coronavirus.

In recent days, the initial tempest in a teapot that my March 21 blog post occasioned has gone ballistic, like a suitcase — or maybe a teapot — nuke.  The mainstream media, always on the lookout for something they can use to besmirch President Trump and anyone who supports him, have conveniently lumped together any and all published or broadcast questions about or criticism of Dr. Fauci.  It appears that Dr. Fauci has now reached the exalted position of him whose word shall not be challenged.  Admittedly, some of the criticism of him online has been severe — but I and other contributors to American Thinker are not responsible for what people say or write elsewhere on the internet.

Of the five mainstream media articles that have made something out of this story — and mentioned American Thinker — in recent days, the most flagrant example of fake news is the New York Times' article on March 28, "Medical Expert Who Corrects Trump Is Now a Target of the Far Right."  The Times cites my March 21 blog post as a key offender and takes note of my reference to Fauci's 2013 email praising secretary of state Hillary Clinton for her performance at a congressional hearing on Benghazi.  Referring to my March 21 blog post, the Times article says:

The American Thinker falsely claimed that the [Fauci] email was evidence that he was part of a secret group who opposed Mr. Trump.

That assertion by the Times is a bald-faced lie.  At best, it represents the jaundiced opinion of the Times' writers, perhaps based on what they read or heard somewhere else on the internet and then ladled onto my blog post at American Thinker.  Never did I say or imply that Fauci's email about Mrs. Clinton was "evidence that he [Fauci] was part of a secret group."

One likely reason why American Thinker has been targeted by the MSM here is because it is a venerable, respected conservative publication that has built up a large and loyal audience during the past 17 years.  As a frequent contributor, I can attest to the fact that American Thinker's contributors adhere to facts as the basis of their reporting, analysis, and opinion.  The publication has editorial standards and oversight — unlike, it must be said, much of the self-congratulatory mainstream media.  It appears that in the view of the New York Times and other Trump-hating MSM outlets, if you can take down a prominent conservative media player like AT, which, by the way, is a competitor, the rest of the conservative pack lower down on the food chain will be easier pickings.

Hundreds — probably several thousand — reader comments have piled up at AT in response to my two blogs posts on this subject and the contributions in recent weeks by many other writers who have offered reporting and opinions about the coronavirus.  A review of these reader comments — aside from the droppings of a few trolls — reveals a deep and thoughtful understanding of the issues on the part of many commenters who are writing from a probing, independent perspective.  In many cases, readers' comments significantly add to and advance the conversation that began with the article or blog post that they are commenting on.

One person who tweeted a response to my March 21 blog said it well: "The vastly disproportionate funding and attention to HIV-AIDS needs to be thoroughly investigated."  That was indeed the essence and the takeaway from my blog post — the one that the Times and other MSM outlets have attacked without mentioning the substance of its content.  Most important, my work has not called into question the actions that the Trump administration is undertaking to quell the coronavirus pandemic.

What I did hope to advance was a discussion of some issues that are being given short shrift in the rush to shut down the entire country with consequences that cannot yet be imagined.  To name just a few, there are the lack of mainstream interest in potentially promising therapies that have already been approved and are being prescribed in off label use with some positive anecdotal reports; the employment of high-tech mass surveillance and the threats to what's left of personal privacy; the possibility of mandates that would accompany the introduction of a coronavirus vaccine; and the potentially irreversible impacts on the economy and tens of millions of uninfected people's lives.

In defending me against one of a large number of attacks that have been posted — some of them crossing the line into threats — author and journalist Diana West tweeted this about my March 21 AT blog post:

It's called original thinking. Our society does not tolerate it and seeks to extinguish it.

Let's hope these latest crude attempts to intimidate, censor, and silence us will not prevail.

This post has been updated (03-30-2020).

This posted was updated 04 -02-20 to include the name of the supportive author.