It’s long been known that the New York Times, perhaps the nation’s most influential newspaper, leans left. No shocker there. A big city media company isn’t the type of place you’d expect to find tons of conservatives. This has been common knowledge for quite some time now and was going on before most of us were even born. Want proof? Walter Duranty, a Pulitzer Price winner, infamously covered up the Holodomor for the New York Times. Duranty not only covered up Stalin’s genocide, but actively carried water for his communist government. Duranty even described Ukranian peasants as “well nourished” and that “children are enthusiastic”.
This has all been exasperated over the last few years. In the age of social media and Trump, mainstream outlets like NYT have become PR for the Democratic Party, and are dedicated to causing the demise of the orange man himself.
The New York Times has experienced a bit of controversy recently because of two separate headlines. After President Trump visited El Paso following the recent mass shooting, he was vocal in denouncing racism, as he should be. Appropriately, the NYT made this their headline (bottom).
This inevitably triggered some of their readers, so the NYT retracted and changed their headline (top). The reactions to their first headline (which is objectively true) were mind blowing. Need more evidence that the media is in the tank for the far left?
More recently, the Times has come under fire (from their own side, again) for another headline referencing Trump aide Stephen Miller:
Once again, true or not, the left will not accept ANY deviation from the narrative. Their readers have made it perfectly clear: they don’t want news, they want what they deem as news to conform to their world views. If The New York Times is printing anything other than partisan propaganda, it can’t be trusted. Sounds very “progressive”, doesn’t it? Nothing says progress like authoritarian tendencies and a preference for state run media.
The bottom-line is that the New York Times is a business and operates as such. Clicks equal revenue, so the NYT editorial staff is pleased to cater to a certain crowd. This is all fine, but the problem is that the times and other outlets want to call themselves “news” and “the fourth estate” while printing nothing but one-sided propaganda. Journalistic ethics aren’t a thing to this crowd, so can we just end the charade? Nobody would care if the New York Times just admitted to being what they are, but that’ll never happen.
The New York Times Recently Had Quite The Mask Off Moment
As if it isn’t already obvious what their intentions are, the brain trust at the NYT recently let one slip. In a meeting held between management and staffers, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet let his staff know that after 2 + years of chasing the Trump-Russia boogeyman, they are to move their focus to the subject of race and racism in America as it relates to, you guessed it, Trump being elected President. According to Baquet, the NYT “will publish the 1619 Project, the most ambitious examination of the legacy of slavery ever undertaken in [inaudible] newspaper, to try to understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump. And that means trying to understand the segment of America that probably does not read us.”
I’m sure we all will interpret this statement differently, but I see it as “let’s find a way to tie slavery and racism to Trump voters. Because us virtuous, coastal media elites need to look through the lens of race to understand these simpletons.” That’s how it sounds to me.
Is that not one of the most smug, elitist things you’ve ever read? He’s trying to sound compassionate with his supposed desire to “understand the segment of America that probably does not read us” but still, he makes it clear that he thinks racism was a huge component in Trump’s rise and eventual election. This type of attitude reminds me of this classic South Park episode…
This is the kind of news story that should be sending aftershocks throughout the country. As I said, it’s always been well known that the Times is a liberal newspaper, but nobody has ever made it more clear that they place narrative over news. They admitted it themselves.
The optimist in me feels that this may begin to illuminate the partisan hackery in the media for more than just the people who already see it. Something tells me that this will be largely covered by right-leaning outlets, and what left-wing/mainstream press it does receive will be adulatory: “kudos to you for talking about racism, NYT”.
It’ll be interesting to see how this develops. Several pieces have been written for the aforementioned 1619 project, and predictably, they have been of the “something I don’t like is racist or can be tied to slavery” variety.
I would be shocked if this doesn’t bite the times (and the left in general) in the long run. This may give that radical leftist audience of theirs that drug-like feel good fix to see stories tying racism and oppression to anything remotely resembling a conservative idea or policy, but it’s certainly not going to grow their readership or their influence. When your goal is to appease the leftist outrage mob, you’ve already lost. This latest effort from the times is doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on the same identity politics that are driving sane people from the left at alarming rates.
The scary part is imagining what could come out of this. Take the 2020 presidential election out of the equation for just one second. This type of rhetoric is more harmful and divisive than anything Trump has been saying, and we’re constantly told that he’s the one driving a wedge between various groups of people in America. It’s hypocritical and lacks any self awareness. Certainly Trump’s rhetoric can be divisive, but I see it being divisive more along political lines than anything else. When you view the world through the lens of race, you will inevitably see racism wherever you look. This is the world that the NYT lives in, and they want all of us to join them.
I’ll stick to reality.