Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

New York Times Refused to Publish Accurate Article About the Kenosha Riots Until After the Election

A writer for The New York Times traveled to Kenosha, Wisc., to report on what was really going on during the riots, and to report on the toll those riots took on the community. The New York Times refused to publish the article until after the 2020 US presidential election, and said so outright.

"A note on Kenosha in light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial," writes Nellie Bowles in Common Sense with Bari Weiss, "Until quite recently, the mainstream liberal argument was that burning down businesses for racial justice was both good and healthy. Burnings allowed for the expression of righteous rage, and the businesses all had insurance to rebuild."

Bowles explains that she was working for the Times at the time, and traveled to Kenosha. What she found bore no resemblance to the story being told by the Times, or other mainstream media outlets.

In fact, much of what had been reported essentially "turned out to be not true. The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots." She spoke to the people who owned the shops, and the communities that relied on those businesses, then she filed the story.

It didn’t run," Bowles writes. "It sat and sat... A few weeks after I filed, an editor told me: The Times wouldn’t be able to run my Kenosha insurance debacle piece until after the 2020 election, so sorry."

Bowles said there were reasons given that weren't about skewing the election or not wanting to put out a truthful story about the riots and their aftermath, but the piece did not run until November 9, 2020, once Joe Biden was declared the winner of the election.

That article spoke about how many of the people out burning, looting, and rioting were white. A shop owner she spoke to in Kenosha told Bowles she was "shocked... to see so many white protestors destroying property in the name of Black lives." Bowles wrote that these "seemed to be well-off young people, with little sense" of what local shops really mean to their owners and their communities.

That shop owner, Linda Tolliver, said "It's some blue-haired, latte-drinking hippie in Seattle coming here to raise hell while they go home to their nice beds. They don't care about any of us."

This was the scene that Kyle Rittenhouse faced when he was out in Kenosha on the night of August 25, 2020, and shot three men, killing two. He is now on trial for those deaths, and has claimed that he was acting in self-defense.

"Whatever the reason for holding the piece," Bowles writes "covering the suffering after the riots was not a priority. The reality that brought Kyle Rittenhouse into the streets was one we reporters were meant to ignore. The old man who tried to put out a blaze at a Kenosha store had his jaw broken. The top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer had to resign in June 2020 amid staff outcry for publishing a piece with the headline, 'Buildings Matter, Too.'

“If you lived in those neighborhoods on fire, you were not supposed to get an extinguisher. The proper response — the only acceptable response — was to see the brick and mortar torn down, to watch the fires burn and to say: thank you."

Bowles article in the Times took aim at the reporting that had been done on the riots and their aftermath in the small city on Lake Michigan. She wrote that "Some activists have downplayed the damage to businesses from looting and arson in racial justice protests around the country" and that "some small entrepreneurs" were "struggling."

Many of the shops and businesses that were destroyed, she wrote, were underinsured. And In Kenosha, "more than 35 small businesses were destroyed, and around 80 were damaged." These shops were locally owned, not big box stores with nearly endless resources.

Bowles spoke to a man who owned three restaurants in Kenosha, who said "We can't call corporate. There's no backup."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40November 24, 2021 1:13 PM

Bowles also spoke to the owners of three used car lots, called Car Source. "Some 140 vehicles in its lot were destroyed by arson," Bowles wrote. "The family that owns the lot, of Indian descent, estimates the damage at $2.5 million." The brothers who own those businesses were called to testify in Rittenhouse's trial.

A family owned cellphone shop was looted then torched, as was a clothing and shoe shop next door, which was also in the family. The apartments that sat on top of these shops also burned. While no person died in those fires, many family pets were lost. These were in a working-class area, and all of the families effected were struggling. Tenants who ended up homeless had to try to get help through crowdsourcing campaigns.

And the Times didn't want their readers to know about this until after Biden won the election. Bowles article is a scathing rebuke of the pro-riot narrative that suited Antifa, BLM and their supporters during the summer of civil unrest in 2020, and after the fact, when the real life impact of those riots were downplayed in order to uphold the social justice narrative woken by mainstream media and Democrat politicians.

by Anonymousreply 1November 22, 2021 6:56 AM

TL;DR this is all still white people’s fault

by Anonymousreply 2November 22, 2021 7:15 AM

[quote]"A note on Kenosha in light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial," writes Nellie Bowles in Common Sense with Bari Weiss,

Sorry, OP, but I'm going to need a better source for this claim besides a Bari Weiss outlet. She's a wonderkind for the shallow, misleading, hypocrite media trickster class.

Luckily people of note are already abandoning her "University" for the rabblerousing grift that it is.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3November 22, 2021 7:59 AM

R38 So you don't trust these people by default, but you do trust the institutions demonstrably omitting MAJOR facts about the events last summer for ideological reasons.

Folks, this is the definition of echo-chamber thinking. If you disagree with what this reporter who is being interviewed by Weiss is saying, you've got to stop thinking that you can just dismiss everything out of hand because you don't like the speaker. If it's stupid shit (q, etc) then yes dismiss it but these claims by the reporter are not Insubstantial and they should be addressed. I would want to know why the grey lady thought its readers didn't need to know this side of the story until after the election was called and unfortunately I'm pretty sure I already do know why.

by Anonymousreply 4November 22, 2021 8:31 AM

I have never read ONCE in any media source, liberal or progressive, that it's ok and justifiable for people to loot and burn down buildings. So the fact that OP's quoted article says that as a point of fact automatically disqualifies it as some sort of accurate source.

by Anonymousreply 5November 22, 2021 9:04 AM

I wish I could quit you NYT. But I already did twenty years ago.

by Anonymousreply 6November 22, 2021 9:22 AM

Exactly. The only source with an agenda here is the source copied and pasted at the OP.

by Anonymousreply 7November 22, 2021 9:25 AM

I notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in here. There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity.

by Anonymousreply 8November 22, 2021 9:28 AM

R1 uses "Democrat" as an adjective. That in and of itself destroys any pretense of factual reality of everything preceding.

And no MSM wanted buildings to burn down.

by Anonymousreply 9November 22, 2021 9:33 AM

R4, You trust this one writer because?

by Anonymousreply 10November 22, 2021 9:34 AM

R5, where were you all summer? I had educated liberal friends all over social media defending the destruction of property and posting articles in support of it.

by Anonymousreply 11November 22, 2021 9:45 AM

R9, the MSM did a lot of gaslighting by downplaying the property destruction.

by Anonymousreply 12November 22, 2021 9:47 AM

Democrats who approve of looting

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13November 22, 2021 10:01 AM

Time magazine certainly approves looting as a legitimate form of protest

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14November 22, 2021 10:02 AM

Kamala is a fan

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15November 22, 2021 10:04 AM

Postmillenial is a right-wing mouthpiece. Don't you have a white robe to dry clean, OP?

[quote]These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16November 22, 2021 10:06 AM

[quote] House Dems Block Resolution Condemning Looting and Rioting

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17November 22, 2021 10:07 AM

[quote] Kamala Harris Called BLM Protests ‘a Movement’ Last Summer, Said ‘They Should Not’ Stop

Kamala Harris called Mahatma Gandhi's igniting the riots in which a million Indians died as a perfectly legitimate form of politics.

by Anonymousreply 18November 22, 2021 10:12 AM

NY Post

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19November 22, 2021 10:12 AM

This one will probably fail your PURITY Test right

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20November 22, 2021 10:13 AM

Why is this surprising? Once the NYT started capitalizing Black but not white, you knew there was an agenda. Also if a white person commits a hate crime, they are identified by race. If black people commit them, they are never identified by race (as in the increase in anti Asian attacks.) So holding an article until after the election seems quite believable. Everything there has to fit their new ideology.

by Anonymousreply 21November 22, 2021 10:14 AM

Maybe this one will pass

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 22November 22, 2021 10:14 AM

R11, No accounting for any friends of yours.

by Anonymousreply 23November 22, 2021 12:14 PM

Jfc, DL is going STRAIGHT down the shitter

by Anonymousreply 24November 22, 2021 12:19 PM

Nobody seems to be noting that the President of the United States at the time of the "held" article was one Donald J. Trump.

That the Administration during these protests was Republican.

Why is the collective inference that this article (true, fiction, biased, whichever) would have HELPED Trump?

Everything bad, criminal, deadly, and destructive, January 2017--January 2021------from protests and riots to Covid-19 deaths to "caravans" of immigrants to deals with the Taliban to the violent attempt to capture the Capitol, our elected Representatives, and our Presidential election--occurred UNDER TRUMP.

Is the implication that the NYT is "Liberal" to the point of withholding the truth?

The NYT that printed the LIES of "journalist" Judith Miller to accelerate the illegal attack on Iraq for the Bush-Cheney regime?

THAT NYT??

by Anonymousreply 25November 22, 2021 12:26 PM

I am reminded of an old coot on a tour bus I was on once. He proclaimed loudly how Dubya "kept America safe." I equally loudly retorted, "Except for 9/11! So pipe down the rest of the trip!" And he did.

Tired of Right-Wing lies and propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 26November 22, 2021 12:30 PM

Well THAT homey little anecdote should put the nail in the argument r26.

by Anonymousreply 27November 22, 2021 12:41 PM

Well, I guess I just had to tell it, r27!

My larger point (even if I'm being irrelevant in my getting around to it!) is that I see no reason to lend credence or politeness to either the OP or the reporter.

They can all pipe down!

by Anonymousreply 28November 22, 2021 1:26 PM

The NY Post has more credibility today than the NYT.

by Anonymousreply 29November 22, 2021 10:08 PM

Hear hear r29!

by Anonymousreply 30November 22, 2021 11:19 PM

"the president was Donald Trump therefore your argument is invalid" -r25

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31November 23, 2021 1:35 AM

R25, yes, and it was Biden’s election to lose. However, all the rioting and looting and media gaslighting of “peaceful protests” and the “Defund the Police” rhetoric was quite counterproductive and played into Trump’s hands, and the election probably wouldn’t have been as close as it was if not for all the protests. Trump was the candidate that offered law and order.

by Anonymousreply 32November 23, 2021 6:28 AM

Even though there was a distinct LACK of law and order under Trump. Four years, and we had more murderous cops and deadly disease than in recent memory.

I get it. Seventy-odd million of my fellow citizens were shown to be utter morons, greedheads, and/or Fascists.

The reporter with the beef could be of their number.

by Anonymousreply 33November 23, 2021 12:09 PM

Oh, and r32? The Presidential election of 2020 wasn't close.

Popular vote = 81 million -- 74 million.

Electoral College vote = 306 -- 232.

by Anonymousreply 34November 23, 2021 12:15 PM

The Andy Ngo stans have been swarming DL like cockroaches lately, posting from his website The Post Millennial (which is so bad it can't even get advertisers anymore) and linking to Ngo's Twitter constantly.

by Anonymousreply 35November 23, 2021 12:16 PM

Every single link about this story cites Nellie Bowles's claims in that Common Sense with Bari Weiss propaganda.

Some MSN intern reworded a Bari Weiss press release and posted it as an article, that doesn't mean MSN did any reporting of their own. A lot of far right propaganda gets disseminated through mainstream media online outlets in this way, it's been a problem for ages.

by Anonymousreply 36November 23, 2021 12:19 PM

Finally, r32, the irony of your final sentence is stupefying.

by Anonymousreply 37November 23, 2021 2:48 PM

[quote] Electoral College vote = 306 -- 232

R34 Which translates into Hillary Clinton lost, because she couldn’t be FUCKING bothered to run the campaign she needed to, to win Electoral College votes.

by Anonymousreply 38November 23, 2021 4:09 PM

R38? That's Biden's victorious total.

Yes, it's similar to the totals in 2016 (304 -- 227), but that wasn't my point, nor the topic of the post to which I replied.

And what, pray, campaign should HRC have run to combat James Comey; the American populace's ignorance and general disinclination to elect a woman President [See: Kamala, Pre-Emptive Attacks On]; MSNBC's free publicity for DJT; America's love of media celebrities [See: McConaughey, Poll Numbers Of]; and the unbridled shameful lying to voters by Trump [See: Swamp, Cleaning The] [See: Jobs]?

Please proceed.

by Anonymousreply 39November 24, 2021 1:00 PM

R11, I'm not on any Social Media, those vaunted bastions of real human beings posting their honest-to-God thoughts.

by Anonymousreply 40November 24, 2021 1:13 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!