Earlier today I wrote about how so-called journalists had achieved peak stupid in response to a segment Tucker Carlson did on his program Tuesday night about New York Times tech reporter Taylor Lorenz.
To recap, Carlson talked about how Lorenz used International Women’s Day to portray herself as a victim of a year-long, online “harassment and smear campaign”, which she says “destroyed her life.” In a segment on how powerful people like Meghan Markle were declaring themselves powerless, Carlson took issue with Lorenz trotting out the victim card, especially considering her position at the supposed newspaper of record at a time when so many are out of work.
What happened next on social media was the very definition of idiotic. “Reporters” from supposedly respectable news outlets like the Washington Post and the Associated Press piled on, proclaiming in so many words that Carlson was “deliberately using her full name and likeness” on-air in an effort to encourage people to harass her. Lorenz got in on the action, too, claiming the photo Carlson used of her was an old photo that “isn’t even from my IG” and that he “photoshopped” her avatar “into something it isn’t.”
All of it was foolishness in the extreme when you consider 1) Lorenz already uses her full name online on all of her social media profiles, 2) the picture Carlson used during his commentary was the very same picture the New York Times uses for Lorenz on her articles/profiles page, and 3) Lorenz herself is a notorious social media namer and shamer and has been called out so many times for it that she’s known by her critics as a “tattletale journalist.” She’s also been known to try and make online social media “connections” with the teenage children of high-profile public figures like Kellyanne and George Conway, which I wrote about last year.
Fast forward a few hours and we now have the official response to Carlson’s segment from the New York Times PR department:
Our response to Tuesday night's "Tucker Carlson Tonight" broadcast. pic.twitter.com/LkvaLjcRl5
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) March 10, 2021
“Pathetic” doesn’t come close to covering what was written there but I’m at a loss to come up with a better one right now.
For starters, if it’s not ok to harass a member of the media, then why did the New York Times try and sic their attack dogs on Carlson last year in what Carlson called at the time an attempt “to injure my wife and kids so that I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them”?
“Last week The New York Times began working on a story about where my family and I live. As a matter of journalism there is no conceivable justification for a story like that,” Carlson said in closing his nightly program. “The paper is not alleging we’ve done anything wrong, and we haven’t. We pay our taxes. We like our neighbors. We’ve never had a dispute with anyone.
“So why is The New York Times doing a story on the location of my family’s house? Well, you know why. To hurt us, to injure my wife and kids so that I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them,” he added.
This is what’s really at the heart of the Times’ “defense” of Lorenz. It’s not about defending her honor; it’s about striking back at Carlson for not putting up with their disgusting attempts at intimidation and shutuppery. He fought back against a plan they had that was inarguably worse than anything he said about Lorenz last night on his program.
In fact, the argument the Times is using can just as easily be turned around on them:
This is a dangerous attack on Tucker Carlson that is designed to cause violent harassment against him and his family.
Last year, Tucker’s home was mobbed by violent NYT fans, terrorizing his wife and children. This tweet by the NYT is a calculated attempt to cause more violence. https://t.co/APjaukGz6y
— The Partyman (@PartymanRandy) March 10, 2021
Let’s also put things in perspective here. While threats of violence are indeed wrong, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with criticizing journalists. They should be no more above reproach than the local postmaster. Also, there is a difference between mere criticism of a journalist versus an attack designed to do maximum damage to all aspects of their life. What Carlson did last night was the former. What the New York Times attempted to do last year was the latter.
As I said earlier, that this molehill about Carlson’s rant was blown up into a mountain just shows the left’s/liberal media’s continued obsession with victimhood, as well as their willingness to hide behind the “journalism” shield when they get called out for their double standards.
The NYT hires a writer who spends her time attempting to harass, cancel, stigmatize and destroy her ideological foes, including fabrications. And then they demand she never be criticized … or it's harassment! So on-brand. https://t.co/JysM5E1epo
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 10, 2021
Memo to the New York Times: If it’s wrong to harass and attack a journalist, here’s an idea: STOP DOING IT.