NYT keeps its “options open” by issuing a confusing response.
By Andrea Widburg
It’s a line so hackneyed that everyone can recite it. The mob goon goes into a local business to force the owner to pay protection money. The goon looks around and says, “Nice little business ya’ got here. Shame if something happened to it.”
That’s how the mafia operates: It threatens people into compliance. And that’s how the New York Times is trying to silence Tucker Carlson – by threatening his family’s safety so that he’ll stop sharing facts and intelligent conservative analysis with the American people.
Tucker Carlson currently hosts the most-watched cable news program on television, a show that’s recently been breaking one record after another. Carlson is straightforward and witty, and he presents conservative ideas with extraordinary moral clarity. He’s also courageous, saying things that others, even conservatives, are afraid to say –for example, calling Black Lives Matter out as a Marxist revolutionary movement, rather than an organization genuinely interested in improving the lives of black people in America.
Because of his clarity and reach, Carlson threatens the Democrats’ monopoly over the social and political narrative in this country, a monopoly they maintain through the media, education, and Hollywood. For that reason, Carlson must be destroyed, and the New York Times has figured out how to do this: It’s going to “dox” him. Carlson detailed what’s going on in his Monday night show (below).
For those unfamiliar with the term, “doxing” people means to publish their private information, especially their address or phone number, on the internet, so that their enemies can easily hunt them down. A left-wing journalist already did that once to Carlson.
Armed with that Carlson’s address, a left-wing mob obligingly descended on the Carlsons’ house, forcing Carlson’s wife to call 911 while hiding in the closet. Even after the police disbursed these domestic terrorists, Tucker and his family (which includes four children) continued to receive threatening mail for another year.
The Carlsons finally decided to leave the neighborhood for their children’s safety. Now, the New York Times wants to force them out of their new home. There is no difference between what the Times is threatening and the mob goon saying, “Nice little house ya’ got here. Shame if something happened to it.”
Carlson says in the video that he has the addresses of those threatening to dox him. It’s unclear, though, if he intends to fight fire with fire or is just making noise. I hope it’s the former. If this is the new standard of journalism, now is the time to apply Rule 4 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” To which I would add Rule 4.1: And make sure you give it to them good and hard.
Update from Thomas Lifson:
Following the broadcast, the New York Times issued a vague and confusing statement of denial to Mediaite:
“While we do not confirm what may or may not publish in future editions, The Times has not and does not plan to expose any residence of Tucker Carlson’s, which Carlson was aware of before tonight’s broadcast.”
What is the predicate of “which”? It makes no sense to state that Carlson would have awareness of “any residence.” Does it mean that Carlson was aware that the Times has no such plans? If so, the statement should be worded differently, for example, “As Carlson was aware of before the before the broadcast….”
I am so old that I remember when the New York Times knew how to write clear, grammatical sentences.
Source with links here…