Scoundrel time: Lefty journalists are fine with the Antifa attack on Andy Ngo

See also: Left-wing thuggery: The battle lines are being drawn in Portland, OR

So where the heck is the mayor of Portland?

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):

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.

See also: Left-wing thuggery: The battle lines are being drawn in Portland, OR

So where the heck is the mayor of Portland?

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):

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.