03/13/17

You won’t believe the 50 websites Harvard has labeled “Fake News”

By: Doug Ross @ Journal

Your betters at the Harvard University Library have published a guide to “Fake News Sites” that includes a bevy of real news sites that happen to lean right. Among them: the Heritage Foundation, Conservative Review, and Wikileaks, the latter of which has revealed (whether you agree with its approach or not) some very real news indeed.

This, my friends, is a dangerous game. Just as Snopes and Politifact are reliable Democrat public relations outlets (remember when the latter played both sides on ‘If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It’?), anyone claiming to be an arbiter of truth is inherently suspect.

Because progressives always get it wrong, I’ll repeat. The market is the only arbiter for media. The marketplace of ideas dictates who wins and loses.

Based upon a simple comparison of ratings, MSNBC and CNN are considered very, very fake news when it lines up against Fox News. And which means National Public Radio is also faux news.

Some here’s my list of the top 50 sites labeled by Harvard as ‘False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources’:

Site Harvard Labels Real Description
americanthinker.com bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
AmmoLand.com bias Firearm news liberals hate
barenakedislam.com hate News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
breitbart.com political unreliable bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
canadafreepress.com conspiracy bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
centerforsecuritypolicy.org bias conspiracy News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
citizensunited.org bias Pro-free speech group that liberals hate
city-journal.org political Urban news that liberals hate
CNSNews.com unreliable bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
commentarymagazine.com political Political opinions that liberals hate
conservativereview.com political Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
counterjihad.com bias News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
dailycaller.com political clickbait unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
dailysignal.com bias Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
drudgereport.com political bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
familysecuritymatters.org conspiracy bias News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
FreeBeacon.com bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
freedomworks.org political Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
frontpagemag.com bias hate News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
gatesofvienna.net hate conspiracy News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
heartland.org bias Pro-business group that liberals hate
heritage.org unknown Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
jihadwatch.org unknown News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
judicialwatch.org unknown Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
lifenews.com bias clickbait Pro-Life articles that liberals hate
lifezette.com clickbait Pro-Life articles that liberals hate
nationalreview.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
pamelageller.com conspiracy fake bias News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
PeakProsperity.com unknown Economic facts that liberals despise
pjmedia.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
powerlineblog.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
rightwingnews.com bias unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
ShadowStats.com unknown Economic facts that liberals despise
SteveQuayle.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
theamericanmirror.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
TheBurningPlatform.com unknown Economic facts that liberals despise
theconservativetreehouse.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
theduran.com unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
thegatewaypundit.com bias conspiracy unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
theintercept.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
therightscoop.com fake clickbait Videos of news shows that liberals hate
truepundit.com bias clickbait Political news and opinion liberals hate
twitchy.com clickbait rumor Tweets that liberals hate
unz.com unknown Politically incorrect articles that liberals hate
weaselzippers.us unreliable bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
weeklystandard.com political bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
westernjournalism.com bias clickbait Political news and opinion liberals hate
wikileaks.org unknown Government documents that liberals hate
wnd.com bias clickbait unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
zerohedge.com conspiracy Political news and opinion liberals hate


So my counsel is to visit all of these sites frequently.

Because Harvard’s full of sh**. But you already knew that.

03/3/17

AIM Editor on Daily Ledger About Fake News

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Accuracy in Media Editor Roger Aronoff recently appeared on The Daily Ledger on the One America News Network to discuss how the mainstream media are attempting to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency.

The media, along with Democrats, have concocted the story that Russians influenced the election. “So then it became the Russians, the Russians did it,” said Aronoff. “Does anybody believe that if Hillary had won the election, Obama would have expelled 35 Russian diplomats and put these sanctions on? No, of course he wouldn’t have.”

Trump continues to criticize the media for their bias. He recently referred to a Thomas Jefferson quote that “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.” Along with Trump’s tweets, this has caused the establishment media to claim that Trump is attacking the institution of the free press.

“He is not attacking the institution of the free press, which we all cherish,” said Aronoff. “What he’s pointing out is what we at Accuracy in Media have been pointing out since the 1960s, and that is the liberal, left-wing bias in the so-called mainstream media.”

The Washington Post, in particular, has continued its relentless attacks on President Trump. “You can see it virtually every day reading The Washington Post,” said Aronoff. “It’s quite amazing. I’m still looking for the first story that could be labeled pro-Trump. I’m not even looking for pro-Trump, but just something neutral.”

However, Trump is in part to blame for his use of “imprecise language,” said Aronoff. “So, he [Trump] said ‘last night in Sweden,’ when …what happened last night was that he had seen a story on Tucker Carlson’s show on another network, on Fox News. And what he was referring to was the fact that there is a large crime problem, these no-go zones in Sweden and other places now where police don’t want to go. Many policemen are retiring early because they don’t want to deal with what they’re forced to deal with now. And that’s what Trump was talking about.”

Yet the media harped on the issue for days and called the President a liar.

“The whole idea is to delegitimize Trump and his election, and to make it seem like the only way he won is because his buddies, the Russians, gave it to him,” said Aronoff. “Preposterous.”

You can watch the entire interview here:

02/28/17

Fake News Still Lyin’ About The Tea Party

By: Lloyd Marcus

Harriet Baldwin posted on Face Book. “Pisses me off when the alt-left media likens these paid Obama/Soros/Alinsky violent protesters to the Tea Party.”

To Harriet, I say, “Amen sister!”

Folks, I am a black singer/songwriter who has been in the Tea Party from the beginning. In 2008, Our Country Deserves Better PAC invited me on their “Stop Obama” national bus tour. In 2009, I wrote the “American Tea Party Anthem” http://bit.ly/2lr3JZX which I performed at Tea Party rallies on 14 national bus tours with Tea Party Express and others.

It has infuriated me the way the despicable fake news media intentionally branded the salt-of-the-earth good Americans at the rallies a bunch of redneck racists vehemently opposed to America electing its first black president. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of those folks at the rallies excitedly voted for Obama assuming it would heal America’s racial divides. They became aware that Obama was the Left’s bait and switch president; running as a moderate – governing like an out-of-control lawless far-left radical.

Folks, Tea Party people are not racist. They love their country. They desire equal justice for all Americans. They do not want government dictating how to raise their kids and micromanaging their lives to achieve the Left’s absurd goal of equal outcomes.

Trump calling out fake news outlets is exhilarating.

Along with media from around the world, CNN was embedded on one of the Tea Party Express tours. The CNN reporter attended 35 rallies for a CNN documentary. I was a headliner, opening every rally, rocking the house with my “American Tea Party Anthem.” I closed every rally with a powerful rendition of “God Bless the USA” in which I invited every veteran in the audience to join me on stage. Audiences spontaneously jumped to their feet, cheering and applauding as vets made their way to the stage. The crowds expressed extra enthusiastic love when a WWII vet made his way or was helped to the stage.

The people loved me and I loved them back because we were united in our love for America and our desire not to see her transformed into a socialist/progressive Godless nation. Rally attendees treated me like a rock star; purchasing my CDs, asking for autographs, asking me to take pictures with their kids.

When the CNN documentary was aired, not one time was my black face shown, nor was black Christian publishers, William and Selena Owens, Kevin Jackson, Herman Cain or other black speakers at the rallies.

Consequently, my 80 year old black dad believed the Tea Party was a bunch of hate-filled scary racist white people because he heard it on CNN. I said, “But dad, I’m on the tour bus and they allow me to ride up front!”

As I said, the complete opposite of the fake news narrative regrading the Tea Party is true.

In Texas at a Tea Party rally, a white cowboy approached me pushing a stroller with two black babies. The proud father of adopted babies from Africa said he and his white wife asked God to give them kids who needed their love. He was excited about his babies soon becoming American citizens.

In Michigan at a rally, a white woman in a wheelchair, spotted me. “Oh my gosh, it’s Lloyd Marcus! Can I please have a picture with you?” The woman’s adult daughter told someone on our staff. “My mom is dying. She said all she wanted to do was meet Lloyd Marcus.”

Tea Party attendees endlessly apologized to me for opposing the first black president. Folks, I could go on and on with fond memories of heartwarming incidents, acts of kindness, love, respect and tearful moments of patriotism.

So, when fake news media goes messin’ with my tea party family, they’re on the fightin’ side of me. The decent, hardworking, orderly and responsible patriots in the Tea Party have been purposely slandered by the fake news media. It is beyond disgusting.

Meanwhile, scum-of-the-earth Black Lives Matter which encourages blacks to kill white people and cops is celebrated in the fake news media. Though unreported, black attacks on whites http://bit.ly/2lIa7vB , ambushes and assassinations of police have skyrocketed. http://usat.ly/2fhaVRR

Since election night when We the People stunned the fake news media by defeating Hillary, Leftists have literally lost their minds with vitriolic hate for us. Obama http://bit.ly/2lAQrL4 and Soros http://bit.ly/2kNYmkt launched violent hate groups and protesters to wreck havoc in our streets to create the illusion that a majority of Americans hate Trump.

And now, fake news media has the nerve to place the Left’s paid deranged, violent and chaos producing thugs on a higher moral level than the Tea Party. Heaven forbid.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Author: “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.”
Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist
mr_lloydmar[email protected]
http://www.lloydmarcus.com/

02/20/17

How CNN Recycled Last Year’s Fake News

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

If you have any doubts about the basic dishonesty of CNN, consider how the channel not only broadcasts fake news but recycles it.

Remember that CNN “broke” the story about the “Russian Trump dossier” compiled by an ex-British intelligence agent for Hillary Clinton supporters. The document was opposition research against then-candidate Donald Trump, now President.

Despite the lack of any corroboration from any source, including hostile anti-Trump media or the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), after several months of secret efforts, CNN is now claiming in a February 10 story that its U.S. intelligence and investigative sources say that “some aspects” of the 35-page dossier “for the first time” have been “corroborated.”

Let’s examine this startling claim.

CNN is adamant as to how this is the very first shred of any purported confirmation of the “Trump dossier” ever to be found by U.S. official agencies:

Until now, US intelligence and law enforcement officials have said they could not verify any parts of the dossier.”

“The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement ‘greater confidence’ in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents, these sources say.” [emphasis added, here and elsewhere]

Yet these very same “aspects” were reported in the press in September 2016 as then under active investigation by “U.S. intelligence and law enforcement.” The latter are typical buzzwords for the CIA and FBI, which are indeed two of the main agencies CNN asked for official comment five months later in February 2017.

Did U.S. intelligence “forget” about their own investigations? Or did the CIA in particular simply wait several months and pretend ignorance of the September investigations in order to make an “aha” discovery that would be reported in a leak as sensational “breaking news” in February?

According to CNN, the intercepted data allegedly confirm that “some…conversations described in the dossier” actually “took place” and were between named Russians and/or foreigners. These allegedly involve confirming the existence of conversations between the “same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier” but do not confirm any of the “salacious allegations” about Trump (the purported lurid “sex perversions”).

But the “Trump dossier” is missing critical factual details such as many essential names, dates and places. So what is CNN talking about on the “dossier” detailing “same days” and “same locations?” The “Trump dossier” is almost devoid of any dates and locations of meetings of key figures, making its allegations suspiciously difficult to verify.

There are only two meetings in the entire 35-page “Trump dossier” with dates and locations of such alleged top-level meetings or conversations:

  1. Russian oil company head Igor Sechin supposedly meeting with sometime alleged Trump adviser Carter Page in Moscow about July 7-8, 2016; and
  2. Putin’s alleged meeting with ally and ex-ruler of Ukraine, Yanukovych, near Volgograd on Aug. 15, 2016.

A New York Times report similar to CNN’s indeed confirms that Page and Yanukovych are the targets of investigation using intercepted phone conversations, and that the “Trump dossier” is a major subject of review.

But the fact of Carter Page’s visit to Moscow was public news in a Reuters dispatch on July 7, 2016, and needed no six months of exhaustive review of “intercepted communications” to verify it. All one had to do was just Google it.

By September 23, 2016, Yahoo News was reporting that, based in part on U.S. intelligence sources who had “actively monitored” (or intercepted) Russian communications, the specific alleged Sechin-Page meeting was under investigation by U.S. intelligence sources. This, again, was easily discovered by Googling it. If the CIA “forgot” that it “knew” about this “monitoring,” officials could just Google the Yahoo story to help them “remember” its own investigation.

The same major media that fell all over themselves claiming they were so scrupulous in not publishing any of the “Trump dossier”—because they could not confirm any of it—in fact were leaking material from the “dossier” in veiled and not-so-veiled references as far back as The New York Times on July 29, 2016.

A Yahoo News report on September 23, 2016, reads like a long disguised excerpt from the July 19 report in the “Trump dossier” on the Page trip to Moscow, combined with the Reuters dispatch. Yahoo wrote that U.S. officials had received intelligence reports that during his trip to Moscow in July, Page met with Igor Sechin, a close Putin associate and head of Rosneft, Russian’s leading oil company, “a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News.” Sechin supposedly discussed the issue of lifting U.S. sanctions against Russia, “the Western intelligence source said.” The same source said that Page met with another top Putin aide while in Moscow, named Igor Diveykin.

The “Trump dossier” says exactly the same things that appeared two months later in Yahoo News:

TRUMP DOSSIER, July 19, 2016, Report:

“Trump advisor Carter Page holds secret meetings in Moscow with Sechin and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, Divyekin [sic]…Sechin raises issue [of] lifting of western sanctions against Russia….Speaking in July 2016, a Russian source close to Rosneft President, Putin close associate and US-sanctioned individual, Igor Sechin, confided the details of a recent secret meeting between him and…Carter Page.”

(Steele report, dated July 19, 2016, all-caps emphasis removed)

Yahoo’s “well-placed Western intelligence source” very likely may be Christopher Steele, the ex-British MI6 intelligence agent, who was hired by Clinton financial backers to produce the “Trump dossier.”

Yahoo News went on to say that investigations of Carter Page and his Russian contacts were under way, including the “talks” that were being “actively monitored and investigated,” which sounds like the “monitoring” of intercepted communications.  Again, remember this is September 2016, not a sudden “first time” discovery in February 2017:

Yahoo News, September 23, 2016:

“The activities of Trump adviser [sic] Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and ‘high ranking sanctioned individuals’ in Moscow over the summer as evidence of ‘significant and disturbing ties’ between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.

“… a congressional source familiar with the briefings…added that U.S. officials in the briefings indicated that intelligence reports about the adviser’s [Carter Page’s] talks with senior Russian officials close to President Vladimir Putin were being ‘actively monitored and investigated.’ [Emphasis added.]

“A senior U.S. law enforcement official did not dispute that characterization when asked for comment by Yahoo News.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer commented on this latest report on February 10, stating that “We continue to be disgusted by CNN’s fake news reporting.”

The CNN report is indeed fake news, old recycled fake news, dished up as brand new.

Why has there been no apparent progress in the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement investigation since September 23, 2016, given that this latest leak tells us nothing more than what was reported in September? Could it be that when something is fake one cannot find out anything more because there is nothing more to find? The tiny grain of truth around which the fake has been built (such as Page’s actual Moscow visit) was easily found in the original Reuters news dispatch.

Finally, something must be said about the hypocritical reversal of the media on what they were calling the rise of the “surveillance state” and the assault on our civil rights with the revelations of former NSA analyst Edward Snowden.

Now, suddenly, all that concern for civil rights is silenced when it comes to the much more intrusive actual intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens who happen to be connected to now-President Trump. Trump’s people apparently have no civil rights as far as the media and the “surveillance state” itself are concerned.

12/8/16

Where “Fake News” Meets Real News

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

With the media in disarray, even in meltdown, over their failure to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency last month, the issue of “fake news” has become an urgent concern. What is really of greater concern? Fake websites that are established to make money and discredit their political opponents? Or is it the establishment media that are pushing a political agenda, while claiming to adhere to high standards of journalism?

An armed man recently traveled from North Carolina to search for sexually exploited minors at a pizza shop in Washington, DC—he had been taken in by a phony Internet conspiracy theory known as PizzaGate. This incident has fed the so-called mainstream media with additional reasons to publish stories highlighting the dangers of fake news and online conspiracies.

However, as the creators of fake news are exposed, it becomes clear that these sites are often motivated by making money—while mainstream media organizations use fake news as a means of furthering the Obama administration and the “progressive” agenda.

Georgian citizen Beqa Latsabidze “was savvy enough to change course when he realized what did drive traffic: laudatory stories about Donald J. Trump that mixed real—and completely fake—news in a stew of anti-Clinton fervor,” reported The New York Times on November 25. “Mr. Latsabidze said his only incentive was to make money from Google ads by luring people off Facebook pages and onto his websites,” it reported. Ironically, Latsabidze found that he wasn’t able to make any money publishing “gushing” stories about Hillary Clinton.

Another fake news writer, Jestin Coler, met with MSNBC News to detail his exploits.

“And lately there’s been a lot of coverage in the real news about the growing and booming business of creating fake news,” said Brian Williams on his December 5 show, “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams.” Coler helped organize the dissemination of a fake news story on the “Denver Guardian” about an FBI agent murder-suicide: “FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide.”

“This is one that I would probably take back,” Coler told MSNBC. “And even, to kind of add to that, Google closed all the accounts that were running on the site, so even that money is gone.” Coler, the fake news propagator, admitted to MSNBC that he’s a Hillary Clinton supporter, and in fact voted for her.

In an interview with NPR, Coler wouldn’t cite exact numbers, but said that his fake news grossed similarly to others making $10,000 to $30,000 a month.

Yet, despite the lucrative business, Coler claims that he created these stories to undermine the so-called alt-right and Trump supporters. “The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction,” he told NPR. As for Trump, “His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters…He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.” It should be noted that Coler started working on this back in 2013.

The mainstream media’s fascination with exposing fake news writers such as Coler revolves around the desire to prove that their own reporting is above reproach, and should be trusted. A Gallup poll shows that current trust in the media is hovering at 32 percent, and bottoming out at 14 percent among Republicans.

It’s not as if readers don’t have reasons to distrust the media. Brian Williams’ broadcast regarding the fake news industry was an exercise in irony, and just shows what’s wrong with mainstream reporting today. He is, in effect, the recent “godfather” of fake news, having spread false tales for years about his alleged adventure in Iraq in a Chinook helicopter under fire. Actually, Breitbart has documented more than 30 examples of Williams telling lies or disputed stories. So when he is introducing a story about fake news, do he and his producers think we’ve all forgotten what got him suspended last year?

As we recently reported, the media continue to provide false and misleading reports about Obama’s Iran deal, which is not an actual deal but merely a set of political commitments. Yet most major newspapers and TV networks continue to report that the Iran deal is “signed,” which it isn’t.

We’ve also documented how fake news has allowed President Obama to claim success in everything from fixing the economy, to improving healthcare, to making the world a more peaceful place, to having a scandal-free eight years as president. His actual record, in each case, is quite different.

The reason that the media continue to obsess over fake news stories is that when viewed in contrast, they appear more credible at a time when their public credibility is in short supply. Generally, the fake news stories they are now reporting about are easy to detect. But if the news media continue to publish stories that mislead the public, then they are no better than the online peddlers of fake news, and more of a threat to the marketplace of ideas.

David Harsanyi of The Federalist explained why the left is pushing this issue of fake news so hard. He wrote, “Now that Democrats have sort of moved on from blaming the Electoral College and James Comey and the Russians, they’re absolutely convinced that ‘fake news’ turned the election against Hillary Clinton (although it’s still a mystery why they lost more than 1,000 other seats since Obamacare was passed).”

Pamela Geller, the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), writing for Breitbart, has an even harsher assessment of what the left is up to: “I always understood that the objective was to taint the conservative news-sphere. Sites were created to spread disinformation and shame the right-wingers who jumped on it. This is classic disinformation. It’s always games, games, games…from the people who brought you Soros’ rent-a-mob—rioting, looting and destruction in cities, etc. even going so far as to risk a few deaths all for the cause. But what I didn’t see coming is their ultimate goal: the shut-down of free speech. The left wants to crush free speech, which has been in their cross-hairs for some time now.”

Geller asks, “If a blogger or news writer gets a story wrong, does that designate him or her, or his or her site, as ‘fake news’? If that’s the case, they’ll have to shut down the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, etc. They get things wrong all the time.”

Indeed they do.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

12/7/16

Castro, The New York Times, and Fake News

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

castro

The New York Times is claiming the ability to expose “fake news.” It should know something about the topic. So-called “fake news” from The New York Times helped bring Fidel Castro to power. Castro had urged the Soviet Union to launch the nuclear missiles it had installed in Cuba on the United States, with the potential to obliterate tens of millions of Americans.

In its obituary, “Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90,” the Times mentions that Castro had pushed the world “to the brink of nuclear war,” through the Cuban missile crisis, but did not highlight the fact that he had advocated a Soviet nuclear strike on the U.S.

Here’s a reference to this from The New York Times in 1990: “Fidel Castro urged the Soviet Union to attack the United States in 1962 because he feared an American invasion of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, Nikita S. Khrushchev said in portions of his memoirs published today.”

The memoirs of Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev quoted the Cuban leader as saying in 1962 that the Kremlin “should launch a pre-emptive strike against the U.S.” to prevent destruction of the Soviet missiles in Cuba.

The Times obituary about Castro also neglected to mention that Castro sponsored terrorism in America through such groups as the Weather Underground and FALN. The paper did, however, find time to note that Castro put scarce resources into an effort to develop a Cuban supercow.

The Times referred to “suspicions that Mr. Castro and the Cubans were somehow involved” in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Perhaps the “somehow” had something to do with the fact that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Marxist member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee who had defected to the Soviet Union.

Oswald’s communist connection was more obvious than the Islamic motivation of the Somali Muslim at Ohio State University who was inspired by ISIS to drive a car into a group of students and take out a knife to injure them.

In the obituary, the Times did note the pro-Castro coverage by its correspondent in Cuba at the time of Castro’s seizure of power, saying that Herbert Matthews had “presented a Castro that Americans could root for,” and “repeated Mr. Castro’s assertions that Cuba’s future was anything but a Communist state.”

“He has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution, to hold elections,” Matthews wrote. When asked about the United States, Castro replied, “You can be sure we have no animosity toward the United States and the American people.”

A review of Matthews’ work by Ron Radosh ran under the title, “A Dictator’s Scribe,” while Cuban-American Humberto Fontova authored a piece about Castro, Matthews and the role of the Times as the “Unrepentant Communist Enabler.”

Professor Paul Kengor notes that “conservatives would later joke, quite uneasily, that Castro had gotten his job through the New York Times.”

“Unfortunately,” he goes on to say, “this kind of service by the New York Times has not ended. A new generation of Times reporters is picking up the torch, educated at universities that teach that the only bad thing about communism was Joe McCarthy.”

In this context, one key fact about Castro, relevant to today’s problems in the U.S. news media and academia, is that he studied to become a communist in college. The late leftist filmmaker, Saul Landau, a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, confirmed that Castro told him that he had become a Marxist from the time that he read the Communist Manifesto in his student days.

Castro was also quoted as saying, in a book published in 2006, “In the university, where I arrived simply with a rebel spirit and elementary ideas of justice, I became a Marxist-Leninist and acquired the sentiments that over the years I have had the privilege never to have felt the slightest temptation to abandon.”

Yet, Herbert Matthews called Castro an anti-communist.

It would be nice if The New York Times would simply apologize for using fake news to help bring Castro to power.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.