Which matters more to the New York Times: The First Amendment, or protecting Democrats?
Gail Collins and Bret Stephens have no problem with the tyrannical mindset of House Democrats. This fact was brought home in their weekly Tuesday colloquy on the propaganda (formerly editorial) page of The New York Times, March 14. The usual suspects that day included Tucker Carlson and — how could it be otherwise? — Donald J. Trump.
But did they have a hint of criticism for House Judiciary Committee Democrats who badgered journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger? Pas du tout!
Totalitarian ideologues Collins and Stephens ignored the anti–First Amendment mindset of Rep. Sylvia Garcia and Del. Stacey Plaskett, of the Virgin Islands (curiously, the ranking member on the federal weaponization of government judiciary subcommittee — as a mere delegate, she can't vote on the House floor).
At the very least, couldn't they have cackled over this bizarre remark from the bizarre Rep. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, as reported by the Daily Mail?
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) joined in the Democratic tarnishing of Taibbi's reporting because he agreed to testify.
"'Being a Republican witness today certainly casts a cloud over your objectivity,' she said.
On second thought, Collins and Stephens had to ignore this comment from the bizarre Schultz, given that the cloud hovers permanently over leftist objectivity.
The Daily Mail account of the March 9 Judiciary subcommittee hearing included Plaskett's derisively false attack on Mr. Taibbi as a "so-called journalist." This actual journalist could have replied, in part, Madame Delegate, it would be more accurate for me to refer to you as a so-called representative. Instead, according to the Daily Mail, he simply defended his bona fides:
"Ranking member Plaskett, I'm not a 'so-called journalist,' the veteran Rolling Stone reporter Taibbi retorted. He also added that he was the author of ten books, 'including four New York Times bestsellers.'"
And, as falsehood-purveyors Collins and Stephens ignored Plaskett's insult aimed at Matt Taibbi, they also ignored Rep. Garcia's dismissal of Taibbi's right not to disclose his sources. Here is how the Daily Mail reported Garcia's anti–First Amendment mindset, focusing on Mr. Taibbi:
Later in the hearing, Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) repeatedly asked Taibbi when Elon Musk first approached him and other journalists to review emails and documents surrounding the 2020 election and the social media giant.
"I can't give it to you, unfortunately, because this is a question of sourcing, and I'm a journalist. I don't reveal my sources," Taibbi said.
Garcia pressed on: "So you're not going to tell us when Musk first approached you?"
"Again, congresswoman, you're asking a journalist to reveal a source," Taibbi said.
"You can't have it both ways," Garcia said when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, swatted away any further requests for information. [There is a great deal of Democrat persiflage to swat away.]
It is not clear to this writer why Garcia attacked Mr. Taibbi for wanting to have it both ways. More likely, her "both ways" blurt-out signaled her inherent view: as a Democrat, I protect the right of leftist writers not to reveal their sources, but not the right of journalists who would falsely claim that the First Amendment covers various political views.
The title of the print version of the March 14 Collins-Stephens colloquy asserted, "Carlson Is No Less Dangerous as a Hypocrite." The online title omitted "as a Hypocrite."
Could the digital editors at The Times have concluded, Why draw attention to our very own hypocrisy?