Leftstream Media, Activists Blame Andy Ngo For “Provoking” Antifa Attack
Rejecting his verifiable role as a journalist, they downplay the incident, make excuses for violence
Independent journalist and Quillette editor Andy Ngo was brutally attacked by a mob of antifa thugs in Portland, Oregon on Saturday, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for federal investigation of and action against Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler (D).
Cruz also had a message for the leftstream media.
Sickening criminal assault. To mainstream “journalists”: don’t cover this up, don’t ignore it. https://t.co/0WKE3eQGMb
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 30, 2019
Many “mainstream” outlets ignored, and are still ignoring, the attack on Ngo, and those who do write about it do so in a way that denigrates Ngo, undermines his role as a journalist, and victim-blames.
After an attack on journalist Andy Ngo by Antifa at a rally in Oregon, some journalists have come out in defense of the far-left group and are attempting to smear Ngo as a “fascist-adjacent propagandist.”
. . . . After the attack, journalists, many of whom have close connections to antifa themselves, rushed to downplay the significance of the attack. They have downplayed the injuries Ngo sustained, avoided mentioning antifa in the reports, and shifted blame by claiming that Ngo provoked the attack.
Jason Wilson is a writer for the Guardian, mentioned by Eoin Lenihan as having close connections to antifa, who wrote a piece about the Andy Ngo. In the piece, antifa is not mentioned once. Wilson refers to the attackers as “left-wing protestors.” The injuries Ngo sustained were downplayed in the piece as well, with no mention of Ngo going to the ER for head trauma. The founding editor of Quillette, Claire Lehmann called the piece “Absolutely shameful.”
. . . . Shane Burley, journalist and author of Fascism Today, peddled the claim that Ngo is a “fascist-adjacent propagandist.” His book “looks at the changing world of the far right in Donald Trump’s America” but makes no mention of antifa. Burley was also named by Lenihan as one journalist with close connections to antifa.
There are many, many more such examples. Read the rest.
Really @Oregonian ? You call journalist @MrAndyNgo a “provocateur” in this story. Did you WATCH the unprovoked brutal assault on a news-gatherer? You are siding with Antifa thugs when you smear the victim. https://t.co/exIgH5wBeP
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 1, 2019
I've heard that Ngo deserved what he got b/c he wrote pieces debunking false hate crimes, thus making ppl feel "unsafe." (Shouldn't it have the opposite effect?) Anyway, if journalism on that topic is to become physically unsafe, let's share while we can https://t.co/7i2WGhdbNL
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) July 2, 2019
Can you point me to an article by the mainstream media where they attempt to track down the 12 men who violently attacked @MrAndyNgo?
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) July 1, 2019
The Blaze highlights further examples.
Dan O’Sullivan, who has written for Rolling Stone and VICE, among other mainstream outlets, said in a tweet, “Andy Ngo is not a journalist, and in any event he went there hoping for exactly that outcome and for tweets like this.
https://twitter.com/Bro_Pair/statuses/1145229170311651328
Nathan Bernard, founder of Bernard Media, said Ngo “got his wish”:
After relentlessly baiting and harassing antifa, far-right provocateur Andy Ngo finally got his wish of being milkshaked. Far-right simpletons like Tim Pool will milk this “victim” story for the next week at least. pic.twitter.com/7thyQ4wESk
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) June 29, 2019
Anymann Ismail, a Slate writer, reacted:
I’d argue what the fear mongering he’s done against Muslims plus the work he’s done to discredit hate crimes, helped create an atmosphere of violence that vulnerable people all have to live through just for being who they are. This is bad, but he’s guilty of worse.
— Aymann Ismail (@aymanndotcom) June 30, 2019
.
Cathy Young at Newsday makes salient points about this type of response.
Others condemned the assault but echoed the same themes: that Ngo is not a real journalist and that he provoked the attack. Charlotte Clymer, a writer and communications staffer for the Human Rights Campaign, the premier LGBT rights group, conceded that “violence is completely wrong,” but referred to Ngo as a “sniveling little weasel” who was asking for it. “I’m also not going to pretend that this wasn’t Ngo’s goal from the start,” she wrote on Twitter Saturday.
Clearly, human rights aren’t what they used to be.
One can take issue with some of Ngo’s work, as I have. His coverage of the culture wars, while often excellent, tends to go too easy on the right. But if having biases disqualifies one from being a journalist, every one of Ngo’s detractors is far less of a journalist than he is.
Ngo’s provocation, apparently, was being an antifa-critical reporter and being present at an antifa protest. No decent person would take a “violence is wrong, but he provoked it” position if we were talking about an anti-Trump journalist beaten up at a Trump rally. It’s a position that effectively makes excuses for violence — something that progressives do at their own peril.
It is also worth noting that antifa activists have assaulted journalists who work for mainstream organizations and who incur their wrath while covering protests. Yet some mainstream media outlets still respectfully refer to them as “anti-fascists,” and dismiss claims that antifa is a violent group as a right-wing talking point.
It’s not just the media, Wheeler seems to spreading the idea that Ngo was somehow provoking an attack by being there to report on the protests.
But in the last couple of years, some have increasingly used their opportunity to exercise their 1st amendment rights, as an opportunity to incite violence.
— Mayor Ted Wheeler (@tedwheeler) July 1, 2019
And that’s part of the problem. For these radical leftwing extremists, the mere presence of someone who thinks wrong thoughts is incitement. Indeed, the mere sight of a MAGA hat throws them into uncontrollable rages, as we’ve reported frequently here at LI.
Ngo shared his thoughts about these points with Guy Benson in a radio interview.
Guy Benson: Andy, one of the excuses from the apologists who will mouth a few words of denunciation and then come after you almost as if you were asking for it. They say you’re a sympathizer of white supremacy is that true?
Andy Ngo: Absolutely not. This is what I mean when they’re adopting the rhetoric tactics of Antifa it’s to demonize your ideological opponents of quote unquote Nazis or fascists. So then they have the moral legitimacy to attack you and get praised for it in the public.
Guy Benson: You are a person of color yourself correct.
Andy Ngo: Yes I am
Guy Benson: You also happen to be gay. I am as well. It was pride month and then World Pride this past weekend. I know it doesn’t seem like you were attacked because of your sexuality I just wonder Andy if an LGBT journalist had been attacked in the streets by a right wing mob. On Pride weekend. Might that have gotten some attention from gay rights groups have you heard from any mainstream gay rights groups standing up for you and your rights.
Andy Ngo: I’ve seen quite the contrary. One of the staff people with the Human Rights Campaign actually put out a tweet that was diminishing what had happened to me. We all know that of course this was a progressive journalists who even received a fraction of what I hate saying about the whole machine of the progressive system would go into overdrive to bring attention to that. I mean you see them do that to. Obviously dubious allegations of hate crimes and then they that turned out to be hoaxes. They’ve gone quite quiet. so. It’s disappointing, but not surprising. I’m not the right type of victim.
Guy Benson: Right. The ideology of the victim and the perpetrators in this case it seems like for some people and activists that matters more than the facts of the case which is another example I think of really toxic identity politics. . . .
Ngo gave an interview on Tucker in which he details the horrific attack he experienced.
Watch:
Meanwhile, and despite the explicit videos of Ngo being attacked by a rabid mob of antifa-fasicsts, there are some conspiracy nuts on Twitter who claim it was a rightwing plot.
It sounds like you've received multiple reports that Andy Ngo hired Proud Boys to beat him up so it could be blamed on Antifa, but I don't see a tweet from your account asking for more information on these claims. Weird, I'm sure you'll correct that
— Brahbra (@_Brahbra) July 2, 2019
Here’s the video again:
First skirmish I’ve seen. Didn’t see how this started, but @MrAndyNgo got roughed up. pic.twitter.com/hDkfQchRhG
— Jim Ryan (@Jimryan015) June 29, 2019
There's a video with a different angle of the brutal assault of Andy Ngo. (via @michellemalkin)
Antifa pummeled him with carbon fiber-knuckled gloves (Oakley Assault Gloves).
Timestamps:
:15 Robber steals camera equipment
:17 Assailant with assault gloves
:21 Second assailant pic.twitter.com/yOuWExqYge— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 30, 2019
Michelle Malkin did a frame-by-frame review of the film, identifying the antifa thugs involved in the attack on Ngo; you can review that here.
Meanwhile, Media Matters is trying another tactic. They are calling into question Portland PD’s report that the milkshakes contained cement and are using that to downplay the brutal assault on Ngo. Apparently, if the milkshakes didn’t contain cement, Ngo wasn’t assaulted and didn’t suffer a brain hemorrhage. Or something.
It’s not just the leftstream media who are protecting and making excuses for antifa, Twitter is apparently hot to ban and de-bluecheck users who report on them.
https://twitter.com/alx/status/1146138461885358080
I was just DMing @rambobiggs about his de-verification following his reporting on Portland Antifa violence. POOF. Now he's gone. Suspended.
Just like @lucet_veritas , who was suspended w/o warning or explanation after exposing Portland Antifa violence.— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 2, 2019
Antifa, for its part, is reportedly planning even more dastardly and evil crimes.
FOREWARNED: Antifa Plans Acid Attack on D.C. Free Speech Rally, Promises To Blind Attendees https://t.co/zBi6mjuiMb via @BigLeaguePol
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 2, 2019
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Fight fire with fire. Don’t turn the cheek.
Is the crew here at Legal Insurrection going to do a writeup of the Eddie Gallagher verdict?
He was found Not Guilty on 6 out of 7 charges, only being found guilty of posing for a photo with a casualty, which is a max 4 months in prison (more than he already served).
Just curious to hear your crew’s take on it.
My personal take? Had his buddy not been granted immunity from prosecution and told the jury that he murdered the prisoner, this would have ended differently. 7 members of his team, reported Gallagher. That alone should give pause. These guys are a pretty tight knit community so for that many members to turn on one of their own, you can bet that team had serious problems.
Insufficient information to comment. The newspaper reporting was muddled.
He’s a gay non-Caucasian who doesn’t defend the prevailing narrative at every turn, even challenges it with, like facts and shit. Of course he provoked them. He’s a factsist, and that’s exactly what Antifa was formed to fight against.
The leftist media people think they’re at a safe remove from this sort of street violence because the black bloc psychopaths are on their side? Or that right wingers will escalate the violence – and then media can use that retributive violence to justify antifa/black bloc violence? All for a twitter gotcha moment? Ugh.
SJW journalists should rethink such wrongheaded assumptions. Come to your senses before it’s too late. We are all fashioned from clay.
Why are they wearing masks? Are they not proud of what they’re doing?
They don’t want mommy to take away the car keys.
The irony of accusing Mr Ngo of “asking for it” is that hoping for a violent response is precisely what the Left’s tactics of provocation are all about.
Leftists always project.
Is there any real difference between the KKK and Antifa? Can anyone tell me if there is one because I can only see a few minor ones.?
>
Both are creations of the Left and supported by Democrats, both wear hoods or other materials to hide their identity, both use terror to fight some threat they created in their own minds and hate with a religious fervor, both strongly favor violence to stop this “threat” they claim exists, both are quick to label their opponents as being evil and therefore deserving of the violence brought down upon them, both are inherently dishonest, both create marches to show their power and support, both are political movements on the extreme fringe, etc.
>
It would seem the only real (however minor) differences are that the KKK wore white while Antifa prefers black and that the KKK sought to destroy blacks while Antifa seeks to destroy conservatives. Other than these minor differences, Antifa is the new KKK and should be labeled as such.
One day, someone will defend himself with lethal consequences. It will happen, and then the SWHTF.
The KKK wore hoods to hide their identity just as Antifa members wear masks to hide theirs. The Democratic Party/Left supported the KKK and their actions just as they support Antifa and their actions. The KKK was used to attack and suppress blacks just as Antifa is used to suppress conservatives and their voices. The KKK used extreme and exaggerated claims of threats from the black community as an excuse to justify their existence and actions just as Antifa uses these came claims against conservatives whey all label as extreme or alt right.
>
So, what difference is there between KKK and Antifa other than their target being conservatives instead of blacks? I see none and think we should stop calling them Antifa and start calling them neo-KKK instead. After all, this seems to be a more fitting and accurate label.
One day, someone will defend himself with lethal consequences. It will happen, and then the SWHTF.
_____________________________________________________________
believe this is an accurate prediction–however, would suggest that a more effective response than using lethal force would be an active,direct engagement with these idiots
they obviously fear their own personal injury as they only engage/attack when present in numbers–they seek to avoid personal responsibility/accountability as evidenenced by their disguise–so why not accomodate them?
rather than shooting them, why not focus on disabling them on scene and then unmasking them for the world to identify?
if you take away their anonymity, you take away their power
there are a multitude of methods available to injure/disable them(perhaps permanently)without killing them–let enough of them sustain significant, long-lasting physical injury and the exposure of their personal identity and believe the little cowards(and their precious internet notoriety)will disappear
when enough of them understand that their activities could result in a lifetime in a wheelchair, or loss of the use of one or more limbs, or being able to hear/see out of both eyes, etc. believe their spoiled little juvenile bs will come to an end