Scoundrel time: Lefty journalists are fine with the Antifa attack on Andy Ngo
A large swath of American journalism has been warning the public that by calling journalists the "enemy of the people," President Trump is a threat to the freedom of the press. But when it comes to actual violent obstruction of the freedom of the press, a dismaying cohort of left-wing journos are just fine with it, so long as the target is a conservative journalist.
Andy Ngo's bloody face reflects the clear and present danger to freedom of the press from left-wing thugs:
Two articles catalogue the hall of shame.
Dominic Green of Spectator USA highlights the hypocrisy with his title, "Did Andy Ngo Get What He Deserved?" The answer, as far as some lefties is concerned, is yes.
'Looks you like were attacked by a small family of pigeons,' quipped Parker Molloy of 'the nation's premier progressive watchdog', Media Matters. Looking forward to more one-liners from her about the KKK.
In the "he deserved it" camp:
C.J. Werleman, who has been accused of plagiarism in the past, falsely accused Ngo on Twitter of being 'one of the leading amplifiers of Islamophobia' in the US and, again falsely, accused Ngo, who happens to be the son of a Vietnamese immigrant, of participating in 'white supremacist instigated violence'. The implication being that Ngo got what was coming to him.
Werleman also accuses Ngo of promoting Proud Boys events. The basis for this accusation is a tweet in which Ngo reported that he had been informed of the Proud Boys' march: 'Source w/knowledge tells me Proud Boys hosting event in downtown Portland on June 29 — almost exactly one year after the "Battle of Portland." Unknown if antifa will show up to fight again.' Ngo attached a clip showing violence from last year's rally.
Rather than 'promoting' the Proud Boys, Ngo's tweet is a model of digital journalism: cultivating sources in traditional fashion, and making as value-neutral a report as he can — rather than editorializing or speaking down in the manner of the Times or the Post, or simply making it up, which is what Werleman is doing here.
Werleman is shooting the messenger. This, figuratively, is what the thugs in Portland did to Ngo on Saturday.
Then there is a variant on the theme of getting what you are asking for:
Charlie Warzel, who writes for the New York Times, says that 'the situation is f-----' — he won't say who by — and that 'violence should be unacceptable'. Not 'violence is unacceptable', but violence is conditionally unacceptable — which is to say, acceptable under certain circumstances.
'There are also serious risks involved with putting yourself in volatile situations,' Warzel concludes. 'Any journalist should know that.' So Andy Ngo got what was coming because he wasn't enough of a journalist for the legacy media, and was asking for it because he went to a bar in a short skirt.
Julio Rosas, at the Washington Examiner, provides other examples of trivialization of the attack (language warning):
Andy Ngo is someone who antagonizes those he knows will react in a disproportionate way and this exact outcome was inevitable. Everyone knew it.— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) June 29, 2019
Those who assaulted him, however, are the ones at fault here. https://t.co/CKyYzxdESh
RIP Andy Ngo, whose brain exploded into diarrhea fragments from getting hit with a single piece of silly string. Esteemed brain experts reported 'we've never seen so much thin broth inside someone's skull before.' The WSJ commented: 'Nooo!!! Who will we hire to be racist now?!?!' https://t.co/2FMTwLXR77— Nate Bethea (@inthesedeserts) June 30, 2019
Violence is completely wrong, and I find it sad and weak to allow a sniveling weasel like Andy Ngo to get under one's skin like this, but I'm also not going to pretend that this wasn't Ngo's goal from the start.— Charlotte Clymer🏳️🌈 (@cmclymer) June 30, 2019
I mean... let's cut the shit here. This is what they do.
I’d argue what the fear mongering he’s done against Muslims plus the work he’s done to discredit hate crimes, helped create an atmosphere of violence that vulnerable people all have to live through just for being who they are. This is bad, but he’s guilty of worse.— Aymann Ismail (@aymanndotcom) June 30, 2019
At least Brian Stelzer of CNN, the outlet that has squealed the loudest about Trump's attacks on the media, gets it that his credibility is on the line:
Photo credit: Twitter.