I Got A SHOCKING Text From The New York Times

Added: Oct 30, 2024

The New York Times and Election Misinformation

Shapiro then transitions to a more serious subject, revealing that he received a text from a New York Times reporter, Nico Grant, who sought his comment for an article about political commentators discussing the upcoming election on YouTube. The inquiry was based on research from Media Matters for America, a left-leaning organization known for targeting conservative media. Shapiro expresses his concern that the New York Times is collaborating with Media Matters to suppress conservative voices by labeling their content as "election misinformation." He argues that this is a blatant attempt to manipulate the media landscape just days before an election, effectively silencing dissenting opinions.

Shapiro points out the irony of being approached for comment on misinformation, given his consistent stance that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. He believes that the real goal of the New York Times and Media Matters is to demonetize conservative content on platforms like YouTube, which is a significant source of news for many Americans. He emphasizes that this tactic is not about protecting the integrity of information but rather about controlling the narrative and limiting the reach of conservative viewpoints.

The Media's Double Standards

The discussion shifts to the broader issue of media bias, particularly focusing on CNN's handling of a recent incident involving Ryan Gursky, a conservative commentator who was banned from the network after a heated exchange with Medi Hassan. Shapiro recounts how Hassan, known for his anti-Israel sentiments, called Gursky and other Republicans Nazis during a segment. Gursky's response—a joke about Hassan—led to his ban, highlighting the double standards in how conservative voices are treated compared to their liberal counterparts.

Shapiro criticizes CNN for allowing Hassan to demean guests while punishing Gursky for a light-hearted quip. He argues that this reflects a larger trend in media where left-leaning figures are given a platform to express extreme views without consequence, while conservatives face immediate backlash for any perceived transgression. This incident serves as a microcosm of the media's broader failure to uphold principles of free speech and fair discourse.

The Desperation of the Democratic Party

As the conversation progresses, Shapiro notes the palpable desperation within the Democratic Party as the election approaches. He cites Whoopi Goldberg's bizarre claims that Donald Trump would break up interracial marriages and the absurdity of the media's portrayal of Trump rallies as Nazi gatherings. Shapiro argues that these extreme narratives are indicative of a party that is losing touch with reality and resorting to fearmongering to rally support.

He also discusses the recent comments made by Kamala Harris, who seems to be struggling to connect with voters. Shapiro highlights her awkward attempts to engage with the public, including a cringe-worthy moment where she asked a crowd to shout their names, which fell flat. He points out that Harris's campaign lacks substance and is primarily focused on attacking Trump rather than presenting a coherent vision for the future.

The Role of Policy in Political Discourse

Shapiro emphasizes that the Democrats are avoiding discussions about policy because they know they cannot compete with Trump's record. He references a debate he had with Sam Harris, where they discussed the inability of left-leaning candidates to address their past actions and policies. Instead, the Democratic strategy seems to hinge on painting Trump as a threat to democracy, rather than engaging in a substantive policy debate.

He cites Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post, who openly stated that the election is not about policy but rather a test of democracy. This admission underscores the Democrats' reluctance to discuss their own failures and the effectiveness of Trump's policies during his presidency.