The NY Times Invokes Russia and Conspiracy Theories in an Attempt to Stifle Opposition to 5G

Americans For Responsible Technology

On the eve of the May 15th 5G Day of Action, the first national campaign to push back against the unchecked deployment of 5G-ready small cell infrastructure, the New York Times has published a shameful and wildly inaccurate hit piece asserting that opponents of 5G are being unwittingly manipulated by Russia.

The article, "Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise," focuses exclusively on a television network most people have never heard of - RT America - and argues that the tiny network, controlled by the Russian government, is the sole driving force behind the growing public opposition to 5G.

The Times cleverly conflates 5G-enabled smart phones with 5G small cell antennas, and fails to note that RT America is just one of many media outlets that are covering the controversy over 5G antenna deployment, including Fox News and CNN.

It also neglects to mention the hundreds of recently published, peer-reviewed, independent scientific studies from highly credible academic institutions and our own National Institutes of Health that demonstrate biological harm, including cancer, from exposure to RF microwave radiation. A listing of some of the most recent studies is located here. 

 

Read more

Zero Percent of US Corporate Media Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela

Fair.org

From the beginning, elite media have worked strenuously to narrow the options available for consideration (New York Times, 4/3/19).

A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period (1/15/19–4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti–regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position. Not a single commentator on the big three Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro stepping down from the Venezuelan government.

Of the 76 total articles, opinion videos or TV commentator segments that centered on or gave more than passing attention to Venezuela, 54 (72 percent) expressed explicit support for the Maduro administration’s ouster. Eleven (14 percent) were ambiguous, but were only classified as such for lack of explicit language. Reading between the lines, most of these were clearly also pro–regime change. Another 11 (14 percent) took no position, but many similarly offered ideological ammo for those in support.

The Times published 22 pro–regime change commentaries, three ambiguous and five without a position. The Post also spared no space for the pro-Chavista camp: 22 of its articles expressed support for the end to Maduro’s administration, eight were ambiguous and four took no position. Of the 12 TV opinions surveyed, 10 were pro-regime change and two took no position.

(The Times and Post pieces were found through a Nexis search for “Venezuela” between 1/15/19–4/15/19 using each paper as a source, narrowed to opinion articles and editorials. The search was supplemented with an examination of each outlet’s opinion/blog pages. The TV commentary segments were found through Nexis searches for “Venezuela” and the name of the talkshow during the same time period, in the folders of the corresponding television network: NBC News/CBS Newstranscripts,  ABC News transcripts,  and PBS NewsHour. Non-opinion TV news segments were omitted. The full list of items included can be found here.)

Read more

Oops! NY Times Accidentally Unravels UK Government's Official Skripal Fairy Tale

Kit Klarenberg
Sputnik via sott.net

While London almost immediately blamed Moscow for being behind the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the UK city of Salisbury in March 2018, Russia has strongly rejected its involvement, stressing it's been denied access both to the investigation into the incident and the Russian nationals affected.

On 16th April, the New York Times published a glowing profile of Gina Haspel, who in May 2018 became the seventh director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The article referred to Haspel - the former head of a CIA 'black site' in Thailand at which an indeterminate number of suspected terrorists were viciously tortured - as an "adept tactician" blessed with "good listening, empathy and an ability to connect", and discussed the difficulties the intelligence chief faced in ensuring "her voice is heard at the White House", due to the intransigence of President Donald Trump and a White House that allegedly treats national security professionals "with deep skepticism".

So far, so obsequious - but buried in the hagiography is a fascinating disclosure. In a section titled 'The keys to talking to Trump? Realism and emotion', authors Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman document how Haspel "solidified her reputation" as one of the "most skilled briefers" of the President.

Following the 4^th March 2018 poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, top national security officials are said to have gathered inside the White House to discuss with Trump how Washington should respond - at the time, Whitehall was preparing to expel dozens of Russian diplomats from the UK, and aggressively pushing various key international allies to follow suit. 

Trump was said to have initially dismissed the significance of the poisoning, characterising it as "legitimate spy games, distasteful but within the bounds of espionage". However, Haspel lobbied the President to expel 60 Russian diplomats from the US - and persuaded Trump to take the "strong option" by showing him the Skripals "were not the only victims of Russia's attack".

"Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. Ms. Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option," the article states. 

Read more

‘New York Times’ teams up with Israel to smear slain medic Razzan al-Najjar as ‘complex,’ not innocent

Donald Johnson, James North and Philip Weiss
Mondoweiss

The New York Times today printed a long article giving credence to Israeli claims that Razzan al-Najjar, the young medic killed by an Israeli sniper a week ago, was not innocent. The article takes at face value Israel's desperate efforts to taint the young woman, whom the army has previously maintained it killed by accident.

The first paragraph announces the Times' service to Israel:

The Israeli military published a brief video on Thursday aimed at showing that a Palestinian medic killed by Israeli forces last week was not the neutral health care worker she has been portrayed as.

The article parrots Israeli hasbara, or propaganda, about al-Najjar: that in a video interview of the medic that the Israelis passed along she described herself as a "human shield." 

Razan Ashraf Al-Najjar, 21, nurse killed in Gaza, June 1, 2018.

Not till paragraph 20 of 22, does the Times state what Jonathan Ofir reported yesterday, the Israeli video cut short al-Najjar's actual statement in an effort to misrepresent her.

In the longer video, the comment that the military translated as "I act as a human shield" was part of a sentence in which Ms. Najjar said, "I'm acting as a human rescue shield to protect the injured inside the armistice line."

Nonetheless, Times author Herbert Buchsbaum, a desk editor in New York, chimes in: al-Najjar "may have been a more complex person than either side is making her out to be."

What can the Times mean by "more complex"?

That is, she was not only saving lives, but was part of the protest. Apparently there is something "complex" about this and therefore Israel isn't really guilty of lying, just oversimplifying. That is obfuscation. Everyone knows what this woman was doing: protesting and saving lives. Calling this "complex" is just the NY Times saying she wasn't really sweet and innocent. If Russia did this the Times would call it the cynical slander and lie that it is. But since it is Israel they have to make this into a he said/she said debate. There is a "battle" of narratives about al-Najjar, the Times says. There is no debate. Israel has lied about the al-Najjar case repeatedly.

Read  more 

See also: Israel edited video to misleadingly justify shooting Palestinian medic

Oliver Stone slams ‘lame-brained’ Spielberg movie over WaPo portrayal

RT

Director Oliver Stone took a swipe at the Washington Post and Stephen Spielberg’s “lame-brained” film, The Post in a Facebook tribute to the late journalist Robert Parry on Sunday. 

Stone commended the Consortium News’ founder for breaking from the “tyranny of mainstream media conformity” and his breaking of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Stone then pointed to the fact that the Washington Post’s publisher Katharine Graham, who is the subject of ‘The Post’, “deliberately ignored” that story.

“Note how she’s now being lionized in Spielberg’s lame-brained ‘The Post’,” he said of the character played by Meryl Streep.

‘The Post’ follows the period in 1971 when the Washington Post debated reporting on the Pentagon Papers after the New York Times had been prevented by doing so by a court order.

Read more

Repugnant New York Times exploits child rape case in attempt to smear RT and Sputnik

Adam Garrie
The Duran

This is unethical beyond being poor journalism.

The New York Times recently released a heavily promoted (by the New York Times itself) piece which amounts to an emotional attack on the news outlets RT and Sputnik.

Russia Feed recently explained that on pure journalistic terms, the New York Times (NYT) piece amount to little more than a very long winded way of the the NYT saying 'RT and Sputnik have a different editorial line to us and a more successful, more modern business model and therefore, they are wicked, rather than just a different kind of news source with a different editorial line'.

But what is even more sinister, is that the NYT exploited the actual rape of a child in order to promote a vendetta against RT and Sputnik. Again, one does not have to like RT or Sputnik to understand that exploiting the rape of a 13 year old girl is totally unethical, but this is what the NYT has done.

The story cited by the NYT is the rape case of a 13 year old German girl of Russian ethnicity who was raped in 2016.  

Read more

NY Times op-ed: Mainstream 9/11 narrative “totally false, literally from the first minutes”

Kevin Barrett

 

Today, on the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 neocon coup d’état, the New York Times editorial page has published a column by economist Paul Krugman calling the official narrative “totally false” – and accusing the Bush-Cheney Administration of “rejoicing” at the successful attack on America.

Here is Krugman’s key passage:

In the weeks and months after the atrocity, news media had a narrative about what it meant – basically, that it was a Pearl Harbor moment that brought America together with a new seriousness and resolve. This was comforting and reassuring. It was also totally false, literally from the first minutes.
The truth, as we now know, is that Bush administration officials rejoiced, even as the fires were still burning, at the opportunity they now had to fight the unrelated war they always wanted.”

Krugman does not come right out and say that the Bush-Cheney gang “rejoiced” because they were celebrating a successful covert operation. Nor does he mention the many Israelis who were even more blatantly celebrating their New Pearl Harbor deception:

*The “dancing Israelis,” Mossad agents all, who according to the NYPD had been pre-positioned to film the attacks, and who photographed themselves cheering wildly and flicking cigarette lighters in front of the burning and exploding Twin Towers.

*Benjamin Netanyahu, whose first reaction was that the attacks were “very good,” and who reaffirmed that years later by saying “We are benefitting from one thing” – 9/11.

*Mike Harrari, the legendary Mossad chief, who threw a celebratory party and openly claimed credit for 9/11, according to self-proclaimed eyewitness Dmitri Khalezov.

From ex-Chief Harrari to its agents on the ground in New York, the Mossad wildly and openly celebrated 9/11. The CIA’s reaction was somewhat more ambivalent. According to CIA Iraq Desk asset Susan Lindauer, her Case Officer, Richard Fuisz —who had known ahead of time that a big terror attack would be hitting Lower Manhattan — was on the phone with her on the morning of 9/11 as live television showed the Towers burning and then, suddenly, exploding. Lindauer says that as the Towers exploded, Fuisz’s reaction was an anguished scream: “The goddamn Israelis!”

But just a few weeks later, Bush called a celebratory party at the CIA, broke out the champagne all around, reassured everyone that their jobs were safe, and called 9/11 “just a memory” amidst an atmosphere of relief and rejoicing. (T.H. Meyer, Reality, Truth, and Evil.)

Read more

“Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis”

Uprooted Palestinian Blog

Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist

Trump’s election is having fascinating consequences. Today the New York Times ran a long piece titled, “Liberal Zionism in the Age of Trump,” by Omri Boehm of the New School saying that liberal Zionism is a contradiction: liberal American Jews have “identified themselves with Zionism, a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics.”

Boehm’s most startling point is that Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis. Hannah Arendt is happy today.

The piece will greatly increase the pressure on liberal Zionists to choose one idea or the other, and to stop denying the existence of apartheid.

Boehm says white nationalist Richard Spencer helped to blow up the liberal Zionist hypocrisy in his famous encounter with a Texas rabbi when he said he admires Israel for its ethnic purity and the rabbi had nothing to say. Some of Boehm’s hammer blows:

by denying liberal principles, Zionism immediately becomes continuous with — rather than contradictory to — the anti-Semitic politics of the sort promoted by the alt-right…

insofar as Israel is concerned, every liberal Zionist has not just tolerated the denial of this minimum liberal standard, but avowed this denial as core to their innermost convictions. Whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism consists in the idea that the State of Israel is not Israeli, but Jewish. As such, the country belongs first and foremost not to its citizens, but to the Jewish people — a group that’s defined by ethnic affiliation or religious conversion…

Boehm never comes out and uses the term “racist,” but he might as well.

Trump has changed the map.

Read more

New York Times tries to whitewash publication of faked Ukraine photos

WSW
Alex Lantier 

The New York Times responded yesterday to the exposure of its fabricated report alleging that Russian Special Forces are stirring up protests in east Ukraine against the pro-Western regime in Kiev.

An article Tuesday, titled “Scrutiny over Photos Said to Tie Russia Units to Ukraine,” is a clumsy attempt at damage control. Buried in the paper’s inside pages, the article begins: “A collection of photographs that Ukraine says shows the presence of Russian forces in the eastern part of the country, and which the United States has cited as evidence of Russian involvement, has come under scrutiny.” The Times also noted that “US officials” provided some of the pictures to US Secretary of State John Kerry before his talks with Russian, European and Ukrainian officials last Thursday in Geneva.

The Times does not bother to mention that it featured these faked images in a front-page article and photo spread. It was the Times that used its influence to declare “the presence of Russian forces in the eastern part of the country” as part of a propaganda campaign against Russia. Even its own attempt to explain the “scrutiny” the photos came under shows, however, that the Times was a party to a grotesque falsification.

One set of photographs, the Times writes, “shows a uniformed man with a long beard who was photographed this year in Slovyansk and Kramatorsk and who, the Ukrainians assert, was also photographed during Russian combat operations in Georgia in 2008, wearing a Special Forces patch… Some observers have asked whether the man photographed in Georgia is the same person photographed in eastern Ukraine.”

If “observers” have questioned the images, it is because higher-resolution versions of the Times’ photos available online show quite clearly that the two are different people. The alleged Russian soldier in Georgia is thinner and has a reddish beard, while the bearded man photographed in eastern Ukraine is stouter and has a greying black beard. (Click here for full resolution)

Read more

See also: New Yorks Times Propaganda photos on Ukraine Exposed

New York Times Propaganda Photos on Ukraine Exposed

Global Research

A day after the New York Times published a front-page report purporting to show the involvement of Russian Special Forces in protests in east Ukraine, its report, titled “Photos Link Masked Men in East Ukraine to Russia,” has been exposed as a blatant fabrication.

The Times printed low-resolution pictures of fighters—allegedly wearing Russian insignia while in Georgia, and then later as protesters in east Ukraine—asserting they were the same men, thus proving the existence of an armed Russian intervention in Ukraine. It was based on a crude trick first noted by a commenter on a link posted on Reddit. The photos in the Times were down-sampled versions of higher-resolution images circulating online, which show that the men in the different pictures are in fact not the same.

Images from the New York Times with text and captions:

Original images posted on reddit:

It very rapidly became clear that the Times ’ claims to have proven that Russian soldiers were driving the east Ukraine protests against the pro-Western regime in Kiev were complete rubbish.

The BBC compared the high-resolution pictures of two bearded men the Times falsely asserted were the same fighter. It concluded, “In the 2014 photos, the man’s greying beard appears to be black, while in Georgia six years ago, the slimmer-looking man shown has a reddish beard.”

It also noted that Russian Special Forces patches on the men’s uniforms, highlighted by the Times as proof that they are Russian troops, “can be bought on the Internet for less than $5.”

Asking whether the pictures “prove anything,” the BBC concluded: “It cannot be said for sure that they are actual Russian Special Forces, as the Ukrainians argue.”

In publishing the false allegations, the Times worked closely with the US government, which received the photos from the unelected pro-US regime in Kiev and “endorsed” them before passing them on. At a press briefing, however, US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, whom the New York Times quoted in its article, indicated that the administration was well aware that the photos did not constitute proof of what was being claimed.

Pressed about whether she was certain the pictures showed individuals linked to Russia, Psaki replied: 

“What we see in these photos that have been, again, in international media, on Twitter, and publicly available, is that there are individuals who visibly appear to be tied to Russia. We’ve said that publicly a countless number of times. I will let you draw all the conclusions yourself as to whether these are individuals who look similar or not to other events.”

A journalist at the briefing objected to calling this “evidence,” and asked, “Do you think this is evidence that would stand up in a court of law?”

Psaki replied, “I don’t think it’s a legal—we’re not making a court-of-law case here. We’re just showing that this is photographic evidence that indicates the connection we’ve been talking about for weeks now.”
The journalist asked, “You think it is proof of connection, or it’s just—or you’re just alleging that it’s another sign of this?”

Psaki replied, “It’s another sign.”

In fact, the Times has worked to mislead its readers, uncritically presenting concocted photos delivered by its contacts in the State Department.

Washington, as it passed the pictures on to the Times, knew very well that they did not constitute evidence of anything, but were simply a new propaganda point supporting its as-yet unsubstantiated accusations of Russian involvement in Ukraine. The Obama administration relied on theTimes to publish the pictures, fanning the flames of the media campaign to denounce Russia, without doing any due diligence to check that its materials were accurate or that proved anything at all.

A decade ago, Times journalist Judith Miller was the conduit for broadcasting lies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), touching off a huge media campaign that set the stage for the US invasion of Iraq.

Today, the lies the Times is palming off as news could provoke a war with Russia, a nuclear-armed power.

By fabricating evidence of Russian involvement in east Ukraine, the Times was providing political ammunition for calls in Ukraine and in the Western imperialist powers for a military crackdown against protests in east Ukraine, a region with a large Russian population. This could lead to a military intervention by Moscow in eastern Ukraine to break up the crackdown, and a clash between Russia and Ukraine drawing in the Western powers.

The Times ’ fabrications also served to obscure the fact that this conflict arose out of the decision of Washington and its European allies to topple Ukraine’s previous, Russian-aligned regime in a fascist-led putsch in February. The unelected pro-Western regime in Kiev has now encountered significant popular opposition in pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine. It is this aggressive policy of the Western powers that is driving the explosive standoff in eastern Ukraine.

The employees of the Times who were involved in producing this article, like Judith Miller before them, reflect the growing integration of the media and the state.

Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon, intervened personally four years ago to try to obtain a Chinese visa for the lead author of the Times article, Andrew Higgins. Higgins has been refused entry into China ever since 1991—when, after reporting on the Tiananmen Square massacre, he was found traveling with Chinese state documents in his briefcase and expelled from the country.

Higgins’ reporting on Ukraine in the current crisis has been largely oriented to downplaying the dangers posed by the fascist forces Washington and its European allies put in power in Kiev, and demonizing Russia. One particularly foul piece published on April 8, “Among Ukraine’s Jews, Bigger Worry is Putin, Not Pogroms,” attacked the idea that these groups posed any danger to Ukraine’s Jewish population.

The Right Sector militia and the fascist Svoboda party occupy key posts in the unelected Kiev regime and glorify World War II-era fascist forces, such as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists of Stepan Bandera, who allied with the Nazis during the Ukrainian Holocaust. Yet, according to Higgins, such organizations are far less dangerous to the Ukrainian people that the Russian government.

“Even Right Sector, a coalition of ultranationalist and in some cases neo-Nazi organizations, has made an effort to distance itself from anti-Semitism,” Higgins wrote. “In late February, its leader, Dmytro Yarosh, pledged during a meeting with Israel’s ambassador in Kiev to fight all forms of racism.”

Higgins’ attempt to whitewash the right-wing character of the Kiev regime is of a piece with the current concocted denunciations of Russia by the Times, shamelessly supporting Western imperialism’s intervention in Ukraine.