Retired Journalist EXPOSES Media Parroting Far Left Lies
Journalist EXPOSES Media Blindly Parroting Far Left Lies. In an Op-ed a retired journalist reveals how his organization would blindly parrot the press releases of the SPLC, "like other media outlets."It was only until they started investigated did they realize that the SPLC was rife with injustice they claimed to fight against.In 1995 they were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize over this report. Yet even though we KNOW the SPLC is as awful as those they claim to be against we see major tech firms using the SPLC as consultants to police content on their platforms.Far left activists are using this massive platform and spreading lies, for which they often had to apologize over. Maajid Nawaz last year was awarded 3.375 Million dollars over being maligned by regressive left social justice organization.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
If I told you that prominent journalists were just parroting the talking points of far-left organizations without doing any fact-checking, you'd probably just shrug and say, yeah, sure, it's Monday.
What else is new?
But we're now seeing an op-ed from the Washington Post where a retired journalist says just that.
And for the longest time, they would just read the press release from the SPLC as if it were fact.
The reason this is significant is that the SPLC recently outed its co-founder for being racist and sexist.
There have been investigations into the SPLC, and now we even have former employees coming out saying, yep, the organization has a huge problem with racism, even to this day.
Why that's important?
The S.P.L.C.
regularly smears people, costs them money, and ruins their lives.
In fact, the S.P.L.C.
once called me alt-right and claimed I spoke at a Holocaust deniers conference in Iran, which is completely insane.
They apologized to me over this and issued a statement about it.
But today, Something's happening within the SPLC and it's kind of falling apart.
So we're going to look at the latest news as well as examples of how social media companies are using the word of a known racist organization to police its content.
Now before we get started, I want to give a quick shout out to today's sponsor, Virtual Shield, who helps make this podcast possible.
Virtual Shield is a virtual private network service that can protect your data from prying eyes as you browse the web.
You can find out way more at hidewithtim.com, but essentially, There are people like hackers, there are governments,
corporations that want to track and even steal your data, and a virtual private network like VirtualShield
can help keep that data safe.
Now we don't expect people to break into our homes, but we put locks on our doors and windows
anyway.
The same is true for the internet.
It makes sense to have that simple layer of defense.
So if you're interested, go to hidewithtim.com and you can get 40% off with their Easter
special today.
But now, back to the story.
The Washington Post published this op-ed on April 5th.
Something strange is going on at the civil rights institution.
It must be investigated.
Jim Tharp, a retired journalist who lives in Atlanta, writes,
There's something strange afoot at the SPLC, one of the nation's richest civil and human
rights charities.
In March, the center abruptly fired legendary co-founder Morris Deese.
Deese's biography was quickly scrubbed from the center's website, and the SPLC announced
this week that Karen Baines Dunning would serve as interim president and CEO, giving
the civil rights organization its first black female leader.
In confirming D's departure, then-President Richard Cohen emphasized the Center's values of truth, justice, equity, and inclusion, and said vaguely, When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.
Subsequent news reports pointed to allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment inside an organization that had raised hundreds of millions of dollars from donors to fight just that type of injustice.
Now there are several reasons why this story is so damn important.
In the story he says, I used to do fundraising for non-profits.
but adversaries with the Center. Like other media outlets, we generally parroted SPLC press releases.
We also became friends with SPLC staffers, occasionally attending the Center's parties.
Some of my reporters dated staffers at the Center. I used to do fundraising for nonprofits,
and there was one main reason why I left this line of work.
The nonprofits I worked for, all of them, lied to make money.
They would exaggerate claims.
They would lie explicitly about the work they were doing to create a sense of urgency, as they would describe it, so that we could convince people to hand over their money.
It was dirty work, and once I became wise to it, I said, enough.
There was one time when I was fundraising for the environment.
I was approaching someone in the street, asking them to donate because of Deepwater Horizon.
The talking points provided to me by the nonprofit were factually incorrect, and this person happened to know and called me a liar.
I didn't think I was lying.
I didn't know.
When I reached out to the organization, they said, don't worry about it, keep fundraising, we'll talk about it later.
And I said, hell no.
And I stopped.
When I see what the SPLC is doing, it feels to me, or at least my opinion would be, they're trying to create this idea of a threat from the extremist far-right so that people will donate.
And they've made hundreds of millions of dollars doing it, even smearing people as extremists and alt-right when they're not.
Now, to make this even scarier, YouTube, Twitter, other social media networks have been accused of using the SPLC to police their content.
This story from last year, The Daily Caller, exclusive.
YouTube secretly using SPLC to police videos.
Now think about this.
The SPLC was recently outed as having a deeply racist history.
Why would an organization entrenched in racism be policing racist content?
It just doesn't make sense.
And just yesterday, The Daily Caller reported Twitter backs off partnership with SPLC amid bombshell reports Amazon stays silent.
They say Twitter listed the SPLC as a safety partner working to combat hateful conduct and harassment, according to a June 2018 DCNF report.
The company also included the Trust and Safety Council, which provides input on our safety products, policies and programs.
Twitter's policy page noted at the time, Twitter's page no longer includes SPLC as a member, helping to govern certain types of conduct.
At a time when YouTube was using the known racist organization, the SPLC, to police content, they had falsely accused Majid Nawaz of being an anti-Muslim extremist, and then in June of 2018, had to issue an apology and pay a $3 million settlement Because it was all a lie.
Last year, the SPLC announced it had agreed to pay Majid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation $3.375 million to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism.
The settlement was the result of a lawsuit Nawaz filed in April over his inclusion on the SPLC's Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.
Majid Nawaz combats extremism.
He is a prominent mainstream personality in the UK.
He's very well known.
Why would they lie?
Well, they were forced to pay up over this lie, but think about that.
Would his videos have been censored or removed?
Who else is being maligned by the SPLC?
And why are organizations still taking them seriously when we know today Exactly what the organization is all about.
In fact, Bob Moser, in March, wrote this op-ed for the New Yorker, The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In the story, he says, Co-workers stealthily passed along articles to me.
It was a rite of passage for new staffers, a cautionary heads-up about what we'd stepped into with our noble intentions.
Incoming female staffers were additionally warned by their new colleagues about Morris
Dee's reputation for hitting on young women, and the unchecked power of the lavishly compensated
white men at the top of the organization.
Dees and the center's president, Richard Cohen, made staffers pessimistic that any of these
issues would ever be addressed.
I expected there'd be a lot of creative bickering, a sort of democratic free-for-all, my friend
Brian, a journalist who came aboard a year after me, said one day.
But everybody is so deferential to Morris and Richard.
It's like an effing monarchy around here.
The work could be meaningful and gratifying, but it was hard for many of us not to feel like we'd become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam.
A highly profitable scam.
That's what they're calling it.
And you have these major companies that are taking advice from what has been called a racist, sexist scam.
And they're smearing people.
Now look, this whole story I'm doing, it's going to be biased because of what they claimed about me.
Absurd nonsense.
BuzzFeed published this story in March of last year.
The Southern Poverty Law Center took down an article trying to connect left-wing people and fascists after getting complaints.
The group came under criticism from all sides for taking down an article and allegedly bowing to pressure.
The story says it's unclear precisely why the article was taken down, and that information void has been filled with some accusing the civil rights organization of cowing to the possible threat of litigation or other pressure.
Some believe the article was just badly written and sourced, factually incorrect, and perhaps not vetted or edited.
While I can't speak to the others in the article, let's take a look at the credibility of the SPLC.
The story from BuzzFeed says Tim Poole, who is briefly mentioned in Ross's article as an alt-right journalist, Who attended a conference in Iran in 2012, told BuzzFeed News that he took offense to the SPLC story and denied ever being in Iran.
Ross links to an archived webpage of the conference schedules list that has Tim Pool as a speaker.
I have never been to Iran nor have I spoken at a conference there, Pool told BuzzFeed News.
I also take offense to them calling me alt-right because I come from two generations of interracial families and have no quote white identity.
Pool continued.
Think about the damage done when fake news, when journalists align with far-left activist organizations or just outright hire them and then lie.
Trying to claim, for instance, that I'm alt-right is absolutely absurd.
Now, what they've tried doing after this, not the SPLC but other activists, is alt-right-adjacent, which is also absolutely absurd, because you wouldn't call me communist-adjacent for interviewing communists.
It's just a lie intended to smear.
They do the same thing with PewDiePie.
They make a list of the negative things he's done, sprinkle in some fake news that are more extreme that no one will fact check, and then by creating a list of negative things, it sounds like he's a really bad person.
When in reality, out of the 5,000 videos PewDiePie has done, there's like 4 or 5 things he's done that's been particularly bad.
What they do to me, in my opinion, is actually much more egregious.
Because I haven't done anything bad.
I haven't done anything objectionable.
They just take photos of me from interviews or events where I've interviewed people and only show people these things so they can try and lie about me.
The SPLC writes an article claiming I was in Iran at a Holocaust deniers conference with no proof, no evidence, and that is so absurd they were forced to apologize.
And perhaps that may have been the linchpin for getting the article taken down.
Sure, you can claim someone's alt-right, you can claim whatever you want about people if it's your opinion, but to state as a matter of fact that I traveled to Iran, I never have, or that I spoke at a Holocaust deniers conference is so absolutely insane, it causes the entire article to collapse.
But think about the stories they have published that haven't been taken down, that haven't been corrected, because the people who are being lied about don't have the ability to fight back.
Fortunately, Majid Nawaz was able to win.
Fortunately, I was able to win.
But when YouTube is using the SPLC, when Twitter previously, allegedly, was using the SPLC, what do you think's going to happen to people when they're lied about?
When these smears happen?
In my opinion, they do this to make money.
But now we have the op-ed from the Washington Post.
News organizations just blindly repeat whatever this organization says, even though they've lied.
Yes, granted, they have apologized, at least in my circumstance.
And they also are known to be racist.
And this was known for a very, very long time.
In the Washington Post op-ed, they say that their relationship with the SPLC suddenly soured
when reporters Dan Morse and Greg Jeff began making serious inquiries about the SPLC's finances
and the treatment of black employees. SPLC leaders threatened legal action on several occasions,
and at one point openly attacked the newspaper's investigation in a mass mailing to Montgomery
lawyers and judges. They then slammed the door. Accommodating your charade of objectivity simply
takes too much time, center co-founder Joseph J. Levin Jr.
wrote the advertiser in 1993.
Our patience in this matter is exhausted, and we will not respond to further inquiries of any sort.
In February 1994, after three years of research, The advertiser published an eight-part series titled Rising Fortunes, Morristies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center that found a litany of problems and questionable practices at the SPLC, including a deeply troubled history with its relatively few black employees, some of whom reported hearing the use of racial slurs by the organization's staff and others who likened the center to a plantation.
This report was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in explanatory journalism 1995.
its accomplishments, spending most of its money not on programs but on raising more money and
paying its top staffers, including Deese and Cohen, lavish salaries. This report was a finalist for
the Pulitzer Prize in explanatory journalism 1995, staff of Montgomery Advertiser, for its probe of
questionable management practices and self-interest at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the nation's
best endowed CNN wrote this story just about a week ago.
again challenging what the SPLC is, and it needs to be challenged.
CNN wrote this story just about a week ago.
Famous civil rights group suffers from systemic culture of racism and sexism, staffers say.
But why decades later do we know the SPLC is rife with racism?
Decades ago we heard this.
Today, we hear it.
And yet still, many news organizations just parrot their talking points.
In the story on Twitter backing away from the SPLC, they add, in reference to Amazon, Google, and Facebook, as well as Twitter, all four companies worked with or consulted the SPLC as early as June 2018 to help police their platforms for hate speech or hate groups.
Perhaps they ended their relationships after Majid Nawaz won his settlement against them, or perhaps some of them are still continuing to work with them.
When I was in the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey and Vijay Agade, I asked them about this, and it was kind of a weird interaction where they denied working with them, but it seemed like something may have been off.
Maybe they're no longer working with them, or maybe they just recently decided to back away.
Let me know what you think in the comments below, and we will keep the conversation going.
I guess my question is...
Why do you think people just cite them?
Is it laziness?
Is it political alignment?
Do you think the journalists working for these organizations are just activists so they want to push the lies?
Ultimately, I tend to fall on Hanlon's razor, that you shouldn't attribute malice when it can be easily explained by incompetence.
I'm sure there are a lot of journalists who just say, oh yeah, the SPLC, I've heard of them.
Quote.
As this organization did back in the day.
But we should know better.
A simple Google search, and you can see that in 1995, we knew about their past.
So again, comment below, we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4pm.
And I'll have more videos for you on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6pm Eastern.
