APRIL 3, 2013 BY SHAWN PAUL
In its March 28 issue, The New Yorker published an article titled “Bitter Scalia Leaves U.S.,” by Andy Borowitz in his Borowitz Report.
The article presents Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s supposed decision to resign from the Court and leave the United States. It also quotes Scalia as saying that this past week of hearings concerning same-sex marriage had been “by far the worst week of my life.” The article went on to include contrived quotes about his considered choices of new national citizenship and described his supposed angry outburst at his fellow Justices upon his dramatic exit. The article closed with an inclusion of a stoic and immovable Clarence Thomas, presented as Scalia’s last and only friend that he was doomed to leave behind.
Though this article was posted under “humor” on New Yorker.com, it reads as a straightforward news story and offers few clues that it is intended as satire when posted elsewhere on the web.
Once an unsubscribed and unsuspecting reader is directed to the web page, the first “Subscribe” tab is seen highlighted at the top left corner of screen instead of the “Humor” tab that is found further to the right. As usual, it seems that the “humor” of this far-left rag has left those of us on the right without even a slight case of the chuckles. The only direct clue left connected to the shared or printed version of the article is the keyword “humor,” found under the keyword “Supreme Court,” underneath the body of the article’s text.
In a modern media that almost universally now attempts to appeal to a younger, “hipper” audience, it’s no wonder that The New Yorker would stoop to this level of supposed humor. This sort of article is no doubt directed to those who would also typically rely on such faux news sources as “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” in order to stay connected with current events. They all, at best, provide examples of unethical humor and offer dishonest journalism when measured by any objective standard.
For those of us who understand how the media elite operate, it’s obvious that the New Yorker, which has traditionally catered to a liberal audience, as well as Mr. Borowitz would be quick to cite their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression if they were to be challenged for such things as slander. They would likely offer the excuse that this is “a satirical piece,” not intended to be taken seriously. Our question, then, is why is the joke so well guarded and so devoid of humor for the objective consumer?
The objective consumer already knows the answer to this question. The New Yorker and others are attempting to once again redefine journalism under the guise and protection of satire and the same First Amendment that they so vigorously attack when “freely” expressed by those with an informed or opposing view.
There should also be no wonder that Justice Clarence Thomas is connected to Scalia in this article, as liberal media outlets and their audiences all recognize steadfast conservatives when they see them. Thomas has been attacked since Reagan appointed him to the Court in 1986, including trumped-up charges of rape; and since this piece of satire (P.O.S.) has been published, others have also taken to renewing their attacks against him.
Outnumbered patriots such as Scalia and Thomas deserve our respect and support as long as they exhibit the same for us. To date, it seems that these and countless others have done just that. We would do well to not fall prey to the hearsay and nonsense that is so readily available to us every day.
The liberal powers that exist in our government and in their media mouthpieces are well-organized in their efforts to support causes that were never intended by our founding fathers or our founding documents, nor our Heavenly Father who was revered by both.