That's an old Soviet-era joke, based on the Communist penchant for deleting party members, determined not be aligned with current ideology, from Soviet encyclopedias or erasing them from photos, and disappearing inconvenient events or simply rewriting them in accordance with the current line of the revolutionary vanguard.
We have an increasing number of examples in the U.S. over the past decade. Here's a recent one. On March 13 of this year, the Minnesota Star-Tribune, the state's leading newspaper and house organ for the Democratic Party (the editor was in Walz's cabinet) ran this headline:
"Gov. Walz shares his family's IVF journey as Democrats look to guarantee access to treatments."
Within the past few days, the paper went back and edited, without any editorial note, the headline to read;
"Gov. Walz shares his family's fertility journey as Democrats look to guarantee access to treatments".
The stealth change was necessitated because Walz has wanted to emphasize IVF because it aligned with yet another misinformation attack from Democrats that Trump wants to ban it. It turns out that once his wife admitted IVF was not involved it became an embarrassment for the VP candidate.
It reminds me of USA Today's treatment of an op-ed by election denier Stacey Abrams. Remember when Georgia amended its election laws to make it easier for its citizens to vote compared to those racist restrictions in states like New York and Connecticut?(1) Remember when the Democrats and the media called the new Georgia law "Jim Crow 2.0"?
At the peak of the media frenzy over the law, Abrams published a piece in which she urged businesses to boycott Georgia until the law was changed. As the frenzy died down and the impacts of the boycott, including the ridiculous MLB decision not to hold the All-Star game in Atlanta, which had been designed to honor Hank Aaron, became more and more unpopular, a conservative wrote a piece pointing out how bad Abrams advice was, referring to the USA Today article. Abrams' people responded that she had never advocated for boycotts and, sure enough, the current version of the USA Today article did not mention it. Fortunately, someone had saved an archived version of the op-ed which did urge boycotts. Turns out that once boycotts became unpopular, Abrams, then running against Brian Kemp for governor, was allowed by USA Today to stealth edit her piece!
We constantly see this happen with Wikipedia, an organization run by the Left, where, within 48 hours of any controversy arising, entries have been rewritten to align with the new Democratic party line. It is why Wikipedia is completely untrustworthy as a source for anything with even a slight political or ideological connection.
It's even happening with on-line dictionaries. During Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett's confirmation hearing, Webster's changed its definition of "preference" within 24 hours to conform with the new definition used by Democrats to attack Barrett.
Lately, it's happening at a dizzying pace. Six weeks ago we were told Joe Biden was fine, and attempts by the GOP to "pounce" on his physical and mental health were misinformation, while Kamala Harris was clearly not capable of stepping up to replace him. Today, we are told by the same people that, of course, Biden was in a diminished state, did the noble thing by stepping down (as candidate, not as president which, of course, where is he perfectly capable of performing his duties), while Kamala is the perfect candidate to embody the politics of joy, while running against her own administration, or more accurately to run as if Trump is the incumbent. They don't even try to make any sense of it all. With her incoherence, Kamala is Trump, except the press and the institutions love her.
When we talk about the capture of the institutions by the Left, and why trust in those institutions has diminished so much in recent years, this is why.
------------------------------------------------
(1) I voted in CT from 2000 to 2106. No one mailed me a ballot, and obtaining an absentee ballot was restricted to a limited set of circumstances. I also had to show ID to vote. One time, the person I checked in with at the polling place was my next door neighbor. She made me show ID!
No comments:
Post a Comment