Leftist Media Does Battlefield Prep for White Supremacist Trial

by James A. Bacon

Left-wing media from the New York Times to National Public Radio are as excited as can be about a civil trial starting today in Charlottesville that targets organizers of the infamous Unite the Right rally in 2017. As the Times puts it, lawyers for the nine plaintiffs “are hoping that their quest for unspecified financial damages will both punish the organizers and deter others.”

I have zero sympathy for the white supremacists who organized the event, staged an intimidating torch-light march through the University of Virginia, peddled racism and anti-Semitism the next day, clashed with counter-protesters, and in case of James Alex Fields, Jr., drove a car into a crowd, killing a peaceful demonstrator, Heather Heyer. I would love to see white supremacists put out of business. If the civil lawsuit manages to do that, then I’m all on board.

What concerns me is the media-created mythology exempting the Left from any responsibility for political violence in America today while indicting broader American society for the actions of white supremacists.

The New York Times opines that the case will “underscore some of the most divisive fault lines segmenting the Untied States.”

Fault lines? What fault lines? White supremacists are a fringe group. Can you call it a fault line when 99% of the electorate is on one side and 1% (if that) is on the other?

The newspaper quotes Richard C. Schragger, a University of Virginia law school professor: “The trial will provide a detailed look into the world of far-right extremism and organization, but that world should not be understood as an outlier. Though some of the groups and individuals targeted by the lawsuit seem fringe and marginal, their ideas and the wider conspiracy-mongering and propensity to violence that they represent is alive and well in the U.S.”

The Times implies that sympathy for the white supremacists is widespread by reminding readers of President Donald J. Trump supposed quote that there were “very fine people on both sides.”

I say this as no fan of Trump: that is a absolute lie, and repeating a lie endlessly does not make it true. Trump clearly was talking about “both sides” of the Civil War statue controversy, and in the same set of remarks explicitly denounced white supremacists. But the lie is useful to the scribblers at the Times because Trump presumably spoke for the 49% or so of the country that voted for him, which implies a tolerance in the conservative mainstream for white supremacists.

Ironically, the Times story provides ample evidence that the white supremacists are an outlier in American society. The 14 individuals and 10 organizations named in the lawsuit have no unified strategy for their defense. That may be because some of their lawyers withdrew when defendants stopped paying them. The defendants stopped paying because, for the most part, they are pathetic losers, have few financial resources, and generate no sympathy from anyone. Jason Kessler, the Charlottesville-based agitator who organized the rally, was so bereft of funds that he resorted to visiting the UVa law school library to study the law in order to represent himself. Irate law school students and faculty got the University to issue a No Trespass Order to ban him from the grounds. (I don’t know if he has obtained a lawyer since then.) 

White supremacists can’t raise money online because social media have moved aggressively to de-platform them. Another defendant, Richard B. Spencer, told the court that the case had been “financially crippling” because so many fund-raising platforms had expelled him. Meanwhile, nobody but nobody on the conservative end of the ideological spectrum wants anything to do with them.

By contrast, the plaintiffs do have lawyers, who appear to be very unified, very organized, and well-resourced enough to engage in extensive “digital sleuthing” needed to document communications between white supremacists in the lead-up to the rally. Who is paying them? Do the plaintiffs have third-party financial support? The Times is not interested in that question.

Left-wing media has diligently tracked every prosecution of white supremacists in Charlottesville. (If news stories have covered prosecutions of left-wing protesters who also engaged in violence, they were never played up.) Despite months and months of left-wing violence in Portland, Seattle and other cities, one is left with the impression that only white supremacists have engaged in violence.

If you don’t trust me to provide a balanced view of what happened, check out the Heaphy report, “Independent Review of the 2017 Protest Events in Charlottesville, Virginia.” That exhaustive study documents the escalating tensions between Left and Right in the months preceding the rally, as well as the fact that some far-Left elements came prepared for violence.

The Left and its media mouthpieces often talk of “marginalized” elements of society. It’s hard to imagine any segment of society more marginalized than the white supremacists. That’s exactly what their hateful ideology deserves to be — marginalized. The fact that Klansmen and neo-Nazis try to piggyback on conservative causes does not make them any less on the fringe. Conservatives want nothing to do with them. But the Times will do its best to convince you otherwise.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


16 responses to “Leftist Media Does Battlefield Prep for White Supremacist Trial”

  1. FluxAmbassador Avatar

    Yep, white supremacy is a real fringe belief in America with absolutely no representation in Congress, for example…

    But of course you either don’t see or discount stuff like this because you’re the type of person who thinks that people deciding they no longer wish to venerate a man who made war against his country in defense of slavery by keeping statues that are maybe 100 years old up is the same as the Taliban destroying archaeological significant and religious artifacts. You think that leftist protestors who showed up ready for violence because they understood the threat people like The Proud Boys and Fields present are bad because they didn’t just sit there and let a bunch of – per your own description – anti-Semites just bust their skulls. You think that violence in defense of racism is bad, but somehow so is violence against racism. If violence is supposed to be bad I’d go ahead and change your page’s banner image. If violence is bad then making statues of military veterans is wrong to start with.

    Your ability to perceive this through any sort of moral, ethical, or coherent lens is completely skewed.

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      Boy. we all can’t wait to meet you. You sound like such a delightful person. I’ll bet you’re just as charming in person as you are in print.

  2. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    Interesting that this trial is happening, and the MSM is descending, on the last full week before election day. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

  3. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    “President Donald J. Trump supposed quote that there were ‘very fine people on both sides.’”

    From what I remember, this isn’t a supposed quote—Trump really did say that. But, the “very fine people on both sides” referred to people speaking up…not for the white supremacists, but for the legacies of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

    The MSM continues to claim (or imply or hint) that Trump’s idea of “very fine people” was the neo-Nazis, not the Confederate heritage supporters. That must mean that the MSM has convincing evidence that that was the case. That the very fine people were fans of Adolf Hitler, not Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. That the MSM can convincingly demonstrate that.

    I’d like to see some links to the articles, from objective writers, that have that convincing evidence.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      MSM did not create the UTR march or the anti-Semitic chants. Identifying “fine people” who did this denies reality. I recall watching the former President making the statement and it was quite clear in its moral equivalency. While intellectually the words may be parsed to offer a different interpretation, the meaning was clear. The Holocaust is not denied by suggesting there is are alternative facts (per Kellyanne Conway) to contravene it. Common sense counts also.

      1. Donald Smith Avatar
        Donald Smith

        “MSM did not create the UTR march or the anti-Semitic chants. Identifying ‘fine people who did this denies reality. ”

        Fair enough. But, the march was sparked, at least in part, by Charlottesville’s attempts to remove the Lee and Jackson statues. At least some of the protesters were there to protest that, and defend the reputation of Lee and Jackson. Lumping those people in with the neo-Nazis is unfair, even deceitful.

        “I recall watching the former President making the statement and it was quite clear in its moral equivalency.”

        They were clear, and their meaning was universally accepted, in your opinion.

        “While intellectually the words may be parsed to offer a different interpretation, the meaning was clear.”

        Ummm…what? If “intellectually” the words could “be parsed to offer a different interpretation,” then you can’t assert that your interpretation is the correct one. Can you post links to respected, experienced writers who feel as you do, and can cite evidence to back up their feelings?

        “Common sense counts also.”

        Common sense tells us that, if you had evidence to back your “analysis” up, you would have cited it.

        Thanks for placing yourself on record.

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          Come to think of it…wouldn’t it go against common sense for a man with Jewish children and grandchildren to actually favor neo-Nazis and their thinking?

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Any lumping was accomplished by the morally equivalent statement by Trump. If the march was, even in part, sparked by the prospect of removing some statuary, what substantiates the anti-Semitism? Chants of “blood and soil”? I also don’t recall seeing the placards supporting the two Confederate heroes. And, as the preliminary trial evidence begins to show, a violent protest was part and parcel of the march/rally planners. And what defense of character did Lee and Jackson require? It’s not their character that was being challenged. By religious precept, Trump does not have Jewish children. Nor, in my experience in living in NYC for 7 decades watching his career, he favored whomever might favor him. IMHO.

          1. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “By religious precept, Trump does not have Jewish children.”

            Do his grandchildren count?

            Thanks for placing yourself on record.

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    It may be true in some universe that there exists media reports absolutely free of bias. It is unclear what “battlefield prep” the NYT is engaged in, to what purpose. And what is the relevance of observations that the plaintiffs seem well-financed (if that is true)? The GOP gubernatorial candidate linked – his campaign admitting without evidence – nefarious activity to the ubiquitous George Soros. If the NYT is not interested in plaintiff financial resources, why raise the question? Publicly available material offers no evidence that the defendants are starving. The reports of violence in other parts of the nation (e.g. Kyle Rittenhouse) are not universally defined as left wing despite the impression of some. Inferences are not conclusions.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: the MSM and how wrong/terrible/awful they are in “covering”.

    Let’s assume that is true.

    There actually is other media – a LOT of it.


    why the focus on the MSM?

    It’s like folks are afraid of how the MSM will report and there is no
    other media in existence to counter it.

    I’d WELCOME – on these pages in BR – links to the accounts provided by FOX or Virginia Star or the Washington Examiner , Brietbart, the Federalist Society , etc, …

    why not?

    Of course we all know that all of this is “leftists” fault , Antifa, etc, et all for showing up to rebut racist idiots… gotta be… right?

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      “why the focus on the MSM?”

      Because it still claims to be objective. Which it isn’t. Bari Weiss, on Jordan Peterson’s podcast, said that while the paper’s font may be the same, the New York Times is no longer the paper we all grew up with. The Times has become progressive, and America isn’t a progressive country. Small parts are, but America writ large isn’t.

      It’s important to focus on the MSM’s bias, so that people recognize that it’s biased. That it’s giving a slanted view of the world. That the journalists who used to run those papers have been replaced by activists, who see their duty as shaping events, instead of reporting them.

      To be fair, they have every right to do that. It might even make good business sense. As advertising revenue has diminished, in this age of digital news, news organizations have to rely on their subscribers for the revenue they need. And those subscribers are flawed humans who prefer to read news that reinforces their biases. America’s great newspapers are located in cities, which are increasingly progressive. So, I can’t blame the Washington Post or New York Times if it wants to turn progressive.

      But then, they can’t claim to be “mainstream” anymore. They won’t admit that. So we have to point it out.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        No the MSM does not claim to be objective. They are clearly biased and have been for a very long time.

        But compared to FAUX? geeze…

        The big problem is you guys bitch and complain about the MSM but you continue to read it.


        Why don’t you listen to FAUX and Brietbart , etc…

        Oh wait……..

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          “The big problem is you guys bitch and complain about the MSM but you continue to read it…WTF?”

          Think of it as pest control. If you want to get rid of the bugs, you have to flush them out in the open, so you can spray them.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nope, not exactly. All your analogy really is – is complaining about the bugs – not doing anything about it – like media to rebut what the MSM is saying.

            You guys REALLy WANT to MSM so you can continue to shout about it! If it went away (and a lot of it is), then ya’ll complain that no-one is doing “investigative reporting” – a certainly not the right-leaning media except for bogus activities like project veritas.

  6. Zero sympathy?

    One would prefer at least 1% sympathy. Otherwise you are endorsing lawfare. Using the law as a bludgeon to suppress political views.

    Abhorrent political views? Sure. But freedom for the thought that we hate, once was called the First Amendment.

    “[H]ere we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” said Mr. Jefferson of his University.

    But now in Charlottesville we are very much afraid.

Leave a Reply