Politico reports that USA today has decided to go SJW:

USA Today has suspended the column of a conservative commentator for one month after he called for drivers to “run … down” demonstrators protesting police shootings in Charlotte, North Carolina Wednesday night.
“USA TODAY expects its columnists to provide thoughtful, reasoned contributions to the national conversation, on all platforms,” Bill Sternberg, the editorial page editor of USA Today, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Glenn Reynolds’ Run them down’ tweet, in response to a news report about protesters in Charlotte stopping traffic and surrounding vehicles, was a violation of that standard and can be interpreted as an incitement to violence. Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee who writes twice a week for USA TODAY, has apologized. His column has been suspended for one month.”

I’m sure they see nothing odd about suspending a conservative columnist during the final month of a presidential campaign but it’s USA today’s newspaper and they have the right to do as they see fit.

By that same token so do I and so do you.

For myself I am suspending USA today for one month until the return of Glenn Reynolds to the paper. I’ve blocked the on twitter for the duration of Glenn’s suspension, but on the off chance a link elsewhere leads to USA today without my knowledge I’ve installed the chrome extension Web Blocker and done this:


Given the great variety of news sources out there I’m sure I can do without them USA Today for a month or maybe even more and I’m certainly sure they and their advertisers are delighted to do without tens of thousands of deplorables like me who read his column every week.

If you want to join me in blocking USA today how to do it is here.

If you want to support a site that doesn’t block conservative writers please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

I’m sure when Twitter decided to ban Robert Stacy McCain they figured the story would go away pretty quick.  Stacy’s Friends like myself has done all we can do keep this story alive but in the end we are small potatoes  (My Alexa rank worldwide is 296,388 and 50,856 in the US. with 386 different web sites linking in)

One of the people who has done a lot to keep this story alive is Glenn (Instapundit) Reynolds, his Alexa Rank is 5,239 worldwide and 1226 in the US with 4019 sites linking in.  This means that if his site links you a ton of traffic follows (Hence the term “Instalanche”) but even with many links from Glenn twitter seems unconcerned.

However they might have forgotten that Professor Reynolds also has a weekly platform at USA today.

Guess what he decided to write about yesterday?:

Twitter, for example, recently launched an “anti-harassment” campaign featuring, asEd Morrissey described it, the rather Orwellian-sounding Trust & Safety Council. Almost immediately thereafter, Twitter banned — without much of an explanation — Robert Stacy McCain, a prominent critic of one of the council’s members, Anita Sarkeesian. Shortly before that, Twitter had also de-verified gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, also a Sarkeesian critic. (The blue “verified” check mark is supposed to simply demonstrate that celebrity tweeters are the real thing, not to connote any sort of official endorsement, but, without explanation, Twitter took away Yiannopoulos’s, though he remains, in fact, the real Milo Yiannopoulos.)

As Reason’s Robby Soave notes, it looks suspicious:

“Twitter is a private company, of course, and if it wants to outlaw strong language, it can. In fact, it’s well within its rights to have one set of rules for Robert Stacy McCain, and another set of rules for everyone else. It’s allowed to ban McCain for no reason other than its bosses don’t like him. If Twitter wants to take a side in the online culture war, it can. It can confiscate Milo Yiannopoulos’s blue checkmark. This is not about the First Amendment.”

Soave continues, “But if that’s what Twitter is doing, it’s certainly not being honest about it — and its many, many customers who value the ethos of free speech would certainly object. In constructing its Trust and Safety Council, the social media platform explicitly claimed it was trying to strike a balance between allowing free speech and prohibiting harassment and abuse. But its selections for this committee were entirely one-sided — there’s not a single uncompromising anti-censorship figure or group on the list. It looks like Twitter gave control of its harassment policy to a bunch of ideologues, and now their enemies are being excluded from the platform.”

USA Today’s Alexa ranking is 316 worldwide and 70 in the US with 116,407 sites linking in.

I daresay there might be a few people around the country who will be hearing about #freestacy and Robert Stacy McCain for the first time today.  That’s what happens when one of the top 70 websites in the country writes about it.

So congratulations to Twitter, Anita Sarkeesian and company. Your new Trust and Safety council continues to get more and more national and even international fame.

Aren’t you lucky!

Update: I’m sure this is unrelated:

As if Twitter needed another problem, a recent survey suggests advertisers are souring on the social media platform.

Advertiser interest in Twitter began cresting early last year, but the latest survey by RBC Capital Markets found a significant jump in the number of advertisers who plan to decrease their spending on the website.


I’m back trying to get that elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

Buried in this USA today Story about Al Jazerra coming out of the closet so to speak, actually putting their shingle up in America is a line that might have been easily missed if you are doing a quick read:

Coleman says she watches Al Jazeera simply because it offers so much international news. “It has a lot more foreign correspondents in the field. If you want to know what’s going on in Mali, it’s going to be Al Jazeera that’s covering it. We just don’t have any more foreign correspondents on the ground in (U.S.) television the way Al Jazeera does.”

“Coleman” is Isobel Colemen of the council on Foreign Relations a “non-partisan” Washington think tank. The head of the group since 2003 his Richard Haass who is a regular on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Isabel was asked about the bias’ that might come from Al Jazeera concerning their treatment of Israel & the Arabs (all emphasis mine)

“They’re straight shooters as much as any major news outlet today. There is no unbiased news today,

She continued

“The bias is in the selection of what stories you cover and how you cover them. Al Jazeera will bring its own bias, but it’s no more or no less than what we’re used to already in this country.”

Now readers of this blog have known this for years but what will Chuck “Mythology” Todd say to this? How will he react when a person from an organization whose head, Richard Haass maintains media bias is a fact of life so matter of fact that it’s not worth commenting about?

I suspect it will likely look something like the reaction of Mrs. Merriwether when Rhett Butler bids on Miss Scarlett in Gone with the Wind.