patrick.net

In the “fake news detector” department, the New York Times ran a beautiful bit of emotionally manipulative journalistic malfeasance yesterday, headlined, “E.P.A. Plans to Close All Environmental Justice Offices.” Oh no! (Mr. Bill.) The Times resumed its default factory setting: triggered outrage. Let’s learn how to spot them. ...

The tearful Times received a leaked memorandum from new EPA Director Lee Zeldin (who is crushing it), that directed reorganizing and eliminating the EPA’s “offices of environmental justice” at all 10 regional headquarters plus Washington. These “environmental justice” sub-departments are exactly what you’d expect — a DEI staffing bonanza — featuring a mission the credulous Times described as “trying to ease the burden of pollution on poor and minority communities.”

Trying.

From the Times’ skeptical perspective, the memo was the worst thing that has ever happened in human history, including the Black Death, the Battle of Aguincourt, or even the final episode of Lost. ...

Even worse, Zeldin also canceled hundreds of EPA grants this week (it was running a miniature USAID). The Times said many of the grants were “designated for environmental justice.” I call it a good start. But not to the Grey Lady’s editors. Closing these silly, useless offices proved “this administration gives not a single damn for the people of the United States,” said former E.P.A. official Matthew Tejada, who now receives a generous salary from a progressive NGO. Of course.

Yikes! That doesn’t sound like an overreaction at all. They don’t care about us! Not one little bit! And this proves it!

The obvious implication was that Trump and Zeldin are racist and are cutting crucial and effective environmental justice offices, putting poor people in a pickle, or tossing them into radioactive sludge or something.

But if you read critically, you can spot the trick. It’s not hard.

The Times’ article never actually cited a single concrete example of the EPA’s “justice” offices ever accomplishing anything. Instead, it leaned on fuzzy generalizations (“three decades of work”), appeals to authority (quoting former officials and activist groups), and heated emotional rhetoric (suggesting the closures disregard human lives). The only semi-specific claim — a lawsuit against a petrochemical plant located near a black neighborhood, now dismissed — was filed by the Biden administration, not any of the crack team of EPA’s “environmental justice” employees.

So, the first fake news flag was the article’s framing as about Zeldin — but it never explained the Director’s argument, or even quoted him explaining his decision. The reporters described nothing that EPA critics complain about. Even though the lack of any identifiable accomplishments strongly suggested utter uselessness, the Times studiously avoided mentioning it at all.

There was a second giant fake news flag: the article never quoted anyone who supports the decision to close the EPA’s environmental justice offices, even though it quoted multiple critics at length. Many of those were anonymous, like unnamed EPA employees “bracing for firings” and DOJ employees framed as reluctantly complying with Zeldin’s orders to drop the petro-plant lawsuit.

Modern definitions of propaganda include: persuasion through careful curation of true information, selective omissions, hamhanded emotional appeals instead of evidence, ‘framing’ to shape perception, appeals to cherry-picked authorities, and diligent suppression of counter-narratives.

You can every one of those propaganda elements used in this short NYT article that is ostensibly just about a memo.

In a sense, there was a poetic kind of ‘justice.’ Like the wasteful EPA, the Times wasted 1,200 words wailing over offices it couldn’t even claim had ever done anything helpful except for “trying.”

Wait! I have an idea: Maybe they should apply for an EPA grant.

The real outrage wasn’t Zeldin’s memo—it was that the Times thinks we’re dumb enough to keep falling for its manipulative jiggery-pokery. Read critically.

I didn’t know what to say when he was telling me this.

A family member is worried about his South Korean wife. She is a DEI hire at a major law firm (female, I guess). Many of her friends are also worried who work there (fuckers). Plus, she is not a US citizen, preferring to remain a South Korean citizen for the benefits like free healthcare. Apparently South Korea does no allow dual citizenship. The wife makes frequent social media posts complaining about Trump and US policies, so they are afraid she won’t be allowed back into the country if she leaves (paranoia?).

The relative, a white male, is worried that his wife’s well-paying job may be at risk, as apparently she was not hired based on merit. It is ironic, as he has been the frequent victim of DEI when applying for jobs.

I didn’t know what to say when he was telling me this. Frankly, I was shocked to learn that his wife was a DEI hire.

Kathleen Kennedy is the postergirl for ingrate, and in her mind she's not ungrateful, but the GENIUS behind Lucasfilm Classics.