The New Republic Further Degenerates; Now It's Defending Antifa
Elements of the leftosphere are trying desperately to discredit Eoin Lenihan's paper on journalists colluding with Antifa. They're also trying to discredit Quillette generally--to no avail, I'm sure. Their main argument seems to be that by revealing the names of Antifa lackies in the media, Lenihan had doxed them, and thereby put them in danger from right-wing groups. The conclusion, obviously, is that it is impermissible to identify journalists who carry water for the left-wing terrorist organization, lest some equal and opposite group of psychos take it amiss.
Allegedly, some of the Antifa apologists were harassed by white supremacist groups. And apparently Kelly is trying to argue that this means that it's not permissible to identify by name "journalists" who use their positions to propagandize for Antifa. There's no indication that any of the threats were serious, nor that anyone was actually harmed, nor that Kelly--nor anyone else--was in any actual danger.
Honestly, just go read this hysterical piece of shit.
Lenihan's article does seem to have hit a nerve; so good for him. There's a lot of huffing and puffing and sneering derogation in Kelly's article, but not a single sound criticism of the original paper. The CJR has criticized it, but its criticisms were extremely thin gruel. There are analyses of CJR's efforts out there, but I think I've already linked to them somewhere, and don't want to hunt them down again.
Allegedly, some of the Antifa apologists were harassed by white supremacist groups. And apparently Kelly is trying to argue that this means that it's not permissible to identify by name "journalists" who use their positions to propagandize for Antifa. There's no indication that any of the threats were serious, nor that anyone was actually harmed, nor that Kelly--nor anyone else--was in any actual danger.
Honestly, just go read this hysterical piece of shit.
Lenihan's article does seem to have hit a nerve; so good for him. There's a lot of huffing and puffing and sneering derogation in Kelly's article, but not a single sound criticism of the original paper. The CJR has criticized it, but its criticisms were extremely thin gruel. There are analyses of CJR's efforts out there, but I think I've already linked to them somewhere, and don't want to hunt them down again.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home