« Bernie Sanders doesn’t even understand the Leftspeak in his own lexicon | ‘Helmet inclusivity is important’—or victim culture hits a new low »
March 5, 2023

At the New York Times, a tale of two headlines

By David Zukerman

Here is the Times headline atop a story in the March 3 print edition of the New York Times, claiming that witnesses  lied to  a House committee now looking into "Jan. 6":
 
House Panel Witnesses
Push Jan. 6 Falsehoods.
 
Here is the headline for the same story as set down in the digital Times: 
 

G.O.P. Witnesses, Paid by Trump Ally, Embraced Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theories

 

What is going on at The New York Times?  Does the print side of this Demprop outlet compete with the digital side as to who can artfully come up with the most damaging, albeit, fake, headline on Trump or January 6-related propaganda stories?

 

 
Note the varying emphasis in these headlines:  The print editors sought to malign three witnesses before a House Judiciary subcommittee as liars, while the digital editors tried mightily to cast the witnesses as paid operatives for "Jan. 6. Conspiracies Theories."   
 
Careful scrutiny of  this sorry piece of Demprop from Luke Broadwater and Adam Goldman supports the conclusion that the writers went so far as to smear one of the witnesses, Garret O'Boyle, an FBI field agent in Wichita, Kansas, as embracing "right wing" views.   
 
Special Agent O'Boyle's offense?   He "compared coronavirus vaccine mandates to a Polish reserve police unit during World War II that began as a group of 'just normal people,'  but ultimately 'were basically engaging in genocide just like the rest of the Nazis.'"
 
If Broadwater and Goldman have a problem with O'Boyle's statement that some of the Poles turned bad during World War II, they should use google to find articles like this one:  
 
Poles fatally betrayed most of country’s Jews in hiding from Nazis, study claims   
 
Even a year after World War II, Poles were still carrying out pogroms against Jews, as the Kielce tragedy of July 4, 1946 attests, with 42 Jews killed on a blood libel lie, and another 40 wounded.  (But then, Broadwater and Goldman probably never heard of Kielce, much less the 1946 pogrom.
 
In their rush to defend the Democrats, Broadwater and Goldman likely had been handed a Democat fake news report on the early phase of the House probe of the weaponization of January 6 to turn the American people against Republicans, in particular, MAGA Republicans. 
 
It is more likely than not that ranking member Jerry Nadler and his Democrat second, the delegate from Virgin Islands Stacey Plaskett, (who as delegate cannot cast votes on the House floor -- yet), handed their fake news report to the Timesmen, first, and then to the rest of the media a bit later.   
 
Broadwater and Goldman claim that the ranking member and the delgate wrote the report.   Nadler?  Three initials come to mind:  LOL.
 
Two salient points:  On the digital headline "Paid by Trump Ally," that's no secret. 
 
From the Broadwater-Goldman Demprop piece:
 
Mr. O'Boyle and  [former FBI special Stephen] Friend both testifed that they had received financial support from Kash Patel, a Trump loyalist and former high-rankng official in the former president's administration.
 
On Mr. Friend's refusal to take part in a SWAT raid on a January 6 defendant, he did not claim the raid was unauthorized, he just objected to the display of force. 
 
Retired FBI intelligence analyst George Hill is the third witness targeted by the Demprop report. 
 
Among his "falsehoods" apparently is a tweet that called the FBI "brown shirt enforcers of the @DNC."  Broadwater and Goldman helpfully explained that Hill was probably referring to Nazi storm troopers to decribe the federal law enforcement agency and its relationship to the Democratic National Committee."
 
Demprop writers Broadwater and Goldman slyly implied that Friend, Hill and O'Boyle "do not meet the definition of.a whistle-blower and... have engaged in partisan conduct that calls into conduct their credibility...."
 
True, for Demprop artists, "whistle-blower" probably refers to a leftist who by lies supported by nothing sturdier than innuendo strives mightily to demean and denigrate American patriots.
 
Here, however, is an accepted definition of whistle-blower from the National Whistleblower Center that well applies to witnesses Friend, Hill and O'Boyle:
 
On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.  
On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety.
 
Russell Dye, spokeman for Jim Jordan, chair of the Hoiuse Judiciary Committee and the weaponization of government subcomittee, was quoted by Boadwater and Goldman , indirectly, as claiming that the Democrats sought to smear public servants attempting to expose wrong-doing.  Mr. Dye should protest with appropriate vigor if Broadwater broadwatered his reaction into ripple-free waters.
 
If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com