A media service of European Americans United

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Forum
  • About Us
  • Search
  • Action Alerts
  • Free Podcasts
  • Stories by Author
  • New Online Store
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Links

  • Frank Roman
  • John Young
  • Garden Blog

  • User Menu

  • Register
  • Login
  • Logout
  • Submit News

  • Email This Page

    Syndication Feeds

  • Handheld/PDA
  • XML News Feeds
  • View Sidebar
  • Mozilla Sidebar

  • 21

    Vox Populi, Verboten
    Political Correctness; Posted on: 2007-11-09 14:03:45 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
    The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages. Guess which types of comments won't make the cut. by Christopher Donovan 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. 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, and now finds itself headed toward a white minority. But that story gets no coverage. Whites are not asked how they feel about this. 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. Continue
    News Source: The Occidental Observer


    Entire site copyright ©2007-2008 European Americans United.
    Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of EAU,
    the editors, or any other entity. Some clearly marked materials are
    parodies or fiction. By submitting material you grant European
    Americans United a non-transferable 100 year non-exclusive license
    to use the submitted material.
    The following copyright pertains to the news site software only:
    Copyright ©Copyright (C) 2007-2013
    Powered by Esselbach Storyteller CMS System Version 1.8
    Licensed to: European Americans United