Slaves in Virginia: 1619 Project’s fake news

Some glaring particulars in how wrong this Pulitzer winner was (is).

She is wrong about Virginia being the first place that African slaves were brought to America, and wrong too about the status of the slaves whom a group of pirates brought to Virginia in 1619, many of whom gained their freedom. She is wrong that slavery was the founding institution of America and wrong about its importance in key events, including the American Revolution and the Civil War. Her mistakes about the American Revolution included the absurdity that the colonial Americans launched the Revolution to protect their right to hold slaves.

Her newspaper had to admit one thing:

On this single point, The New York Times felt compelled to make a half-hearted correction to the effect that only some of the colonists harbored this motive. To date, no one has been able to identify a single Revolutionary leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who held such a view. Even ardent supporters of slavery in the 1770s knew better because the British government at the time was stalwart in supporting slavery in the colonies. The meaningful opposition to slavery was among the revolutionary colonists, not the British. And this is no obscure historical fact. Historians working with primary sources have documented the slavery politics of the Revolutionary period in detail.

Her sources? Who knows? The writer takes a shot at that:

How could Hannah-Jones have gotten the facts so spectacularly wrong? There is no answer that reflects well on her. Did she know the facts and chose to suppress them to enhance the fable she was composing? Did she disregard the facts because she believed that the history as recorded was a tissue of falsehoods and that she alone had been vouchsafed a vision of what really happened? (Or she and a handful of zealous believers in Afro-centric conspiracy theories.) Or was she simply ignorant of the facts, having paid little or no attention to both the documentary record and the syntheses of historians who have spent their careers examining that record? Our choices seem to be liar, lunatic, or hustler. I don’t know Hannah-Jones and can offer no judgment, but I am hard-pressed to imagine a fourth, more honorable alternative.

Nor anyone else.

The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood

Pulitzer winner Nikole Hannah-Jones, for her essay leading off the NY Times’ “1619 Project,” is one ignorant and stubborn individual, argues this takedown of her as someone so loose with data as makes one wonder how she makes it to work every day.

Her miscues . . .

. . . include her cavalier disregard of historical facts, her preposterous assertions conjured out of thin air, and her refusal to correct mistakes pointed out by dozens of reputable historians, some of whom have well-earned Pulitzer Prizes of their own.

Egad. She should give it back.

Better yet, how does she (and her newspaper) get away with it?

Shameless copying of WIND-AM’s excellent rundown of reporting and commenting on the shameless “unmasking” of General Flynn . . .

. . . here.

From the story:The day McDonough requested the informationis the same day as an Oval Office meeting that has drawn scrutiny in the wake of the Flynn developments. The meeting includedObama, Biden, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates(Fox News).

From the Wall Street Journal editorial board:The Flynn unmasking is important because it occurred amid a media frenzy over supposed Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Leaks to the Washington Post about the conversations between the Russian ambassador and both Mr. Flynn and soon-to-be Attorney General Jeff Sessions were played up as central to the collusion scandal. They caused Mr. Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia probe and Mr. Flynn to be fired. While unmasking isn’t illegal, leaking intelligence is(WSJ).

From Ed Morrissey:Let’s not forget that the collection of intelligence on US persons while in the US is against the law without a specific warrant from a FISA court. Material on US persons that is collected inadvertently through legitimate counterintelligence operations — such as tracking Russian diplomats — is masked unless there is a pressing threat that requires an extremely limited exposure of their identities. Here we have sixteen Obama administration officials requesting access to Flynn’s identity between the election and Trump’s inauguration(Hot Air).

Sean Davis reminds us “The identities are important because they may shed light on which officials illegally leaked information about Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak to journalists at the Washington Post. U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly investigating the matter and seeking to determine who was responsible for the illegal leak of classified information” (The Federalist).

After NBC’s Andrea Mitchell called this gaslighting, Ari Fleischer responded “Amazing to me how the “cynical” press is missing this story. The issue isn’t how often the intell community unmasks. The issue is how often the White House unmasks. Did it ever occur to the media the Obama WH unmasked like no one before them???”(Twitter).

From Senator Rand Paul:Declassified documents reveal V.P. Biden ordered the unmasking of General Flynn’s private conversation. Anyone think that Biden might have abused his power to go after a political opponent…(Twitter).

From David Harsanyi:Using the no-big-deal standard, it would be legit for Trump to spy on John Kerry (now a member of Biden’s campaign) because he secretly met with Iranians to undermine the administration’s foreign policy. (Even more legit since Flynn was incoming advisor)(Twitter). More (National Review).

From Andy McCarthy:Reminder: Just because we have a list of unmasker names does not mean we know who the actual unmaskers are. If this was GOP unmasking Dems, it’d be a scandal, we’d have answers, and people would already have walked the plank over it(Twitter).

From Hugh Hewitt:Who authorized the unmasking? Pursuant to what standard? Were the “justifications” retained? Is there any precedent for this occurring during a transition and why did vast expanse or ink spilled on SC Report not explain this avalanche of unmaskings and what role they played?(Twitter).

From Katie Pavlich:The argument that the Flynn situation is “just a distraction” isn’t going to fly, DNC(Twitter).

Do you see a mainstream publication in there? Fox News and Wall St. Journal, who do not qualify in the usual sense, being publications of very large circulation who manage to report and comment on news in a reasonable manner, most of the time, especially WSJ.