The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages. Guess which types of comments won’t make the cut.
New York Times’ “Public Editor” Clark Hoyt announced in his most recent column that our paper of record will soon begin allowing reader comments to be posted on its Web pages. See Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet, Nov. 4, 2007.
Before delving in, I knew exactly The Times’ concern: racially conscious whites. Midway through the column, Hoyt confirms this by telling us who won’t be allowed to appear: “Take, for example, ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’, who recently managed to get a comment posted on one blog, The Lede, suggesting that The Times ‘have all the displaced ILLEGALS form the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Builiding… and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront (sic) of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.”
Hoyt proudly tells readers that he personally directed that the comment be removed. Needless to say, he does not ask whether Hispanics are indeed urinating outside. Hoyt also informs us that to ensure future censorship of racially conscious comments, the Times has hired a four-person Memory Hole team to seek out and destroy any blips of white racial consciousness.
Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.” It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.
This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority. The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.
What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.
One might think the sentiments revealed by the Internet would cause the media to do some self-evaluation. If it really cares about fair and insightful coverage of American society, as well as reporting to its audience, it might ask whether its coverage is geared toward that. If white Americans are angry about what has happened to their country, why not cover that, even you as the journalist disagree? They might just find that their (mostly white) readers appreciate seeing their side of the story for once, instead of the incessant coverage of any and all minority complaints.
But this assumes, of course, that the mainstream media is interested in either fair coverage or maintaining readers. In fact, it is not interested in either. On racial issues, the media does not waver from a steady course of denying inherited racial differences, denying Jewish influence, extolling the supposed virtues of “diversity” and denigrating whites. The biggest story of the past 50 years is this: America had a white majority approaching 90 percent for several hundred years, and now finds itself headed toward a white minority. But that story gets no coverage. Whites are not asked how they feel about this. It prompts the question: if an entire race died in the forest and the media didn’t cover it, would it make a noise?
This trend has continued, despite a steady drop in circulation at most major papers over the years. The illegal immigrants so beloved by The New York Times are not, I am guessing, reading The New York Times.
The proper journalistic reaction to ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’ is to find out why he believes as he does, not shut him up. That an organization ostensibly dedicated to gathering information, viewpoints and trends would announce itself to be working against that very mission by censoring whites is remarkable.
The irony is lost on The Times. But we now at least have proof of how dead-set against whites it is. And with the Internet, we know that our death will make a noise — and perhaps be postponed.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.