The New York Times is so extraordinarily biased these days that it cannot be trusted to separate opinion and facts or accurately report the facts about the US Administration or even Swedish death rates. It would hardly seem worth reading. As it is behind a paywall, the question does not arise often.
Still, it did print an article by Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, almost the only Republican with the possible exception of the President not grovelling to Black Lives Matter, who argued:
The puritans were, of course, the 17th century equivalent of the Taliban and so are their contemporary left-wing secular descendants.
Other NYT journalists tweeted:
On Thursday night, the management caved in to the angry journalists and the publisher told the employees that a ‘rushed editorial process’ had led to the publication of an op-ed that ‘did not meet our standards’.
I wonder why they didn't tell the youngsters to pipe down and get on with their work. But this is the future of America and of Europe too.
Still, it did print an article by Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, almost the only Republican with the possible exception of the President not grovelling to Black Lives Matter, who argued:
It's past time to support local law enforcement with federal authority. Some governors have mobilized the National Guard, yet others refuse, and in some cases the rioters still outnumber the police and Guard combined. In these circumstances, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to employ the military "or any other means" in "cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws."Publishing his article prompted a huge debate, if you can call it that, or at any rate a huge divide between journalists over forty, who believe in free speech and debating ideas, and the ones in their twenties who had been triggered. The story is here.
Note 'not to say something would be immoral' - this is the puritanism that runs through America like Southend through a stick of Southend rock. It is responsible for so many bad things (think prohibition) and possibly one or two good ones.I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but to not say something would be immoral. As a black woman, as a journalist, as an American, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this. https://t.co/lU1KmhH2zH— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) June 4, 2020
The puritans were, of course, the 17th century equivalent of the Taliban and so are their contemporary left-wing secular descendants.
Other NYT journalists tweeted:
Whatever does she mean? I can't imagine anywhere less likely to be unfair to black employees than the New York Times.as if it weren’t already hard enough to be a black employee of the New York Times— Jazmine Hughes (@jazzedloon) June 3, 2020
Whatever does she mean by that?Running this put Black @nytimes staffers in danger. In solidarity with my colleagues who agree. pic.twitter.com/UfkZkE1xvj— Jenna Wortham (@jennydeluxe) June 3, 2020
On Thursday night, the management caved in to the angry journalists and the publisher told the employees that a ‘rushed editorial process’ had led to the publication of an op-ed that ‘did not meet our standards’.
I wonder why they didn't tell the youngsters to pipe down and get on with their work. But this is the future of America and of Europe too.
No comments:
Post a Comment