By Duncan Smith
After The New York Times’ editorial staff decided to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) in which the Harvard-educated lawyer and former U.S. Army officer with two combat tours argued in support of President Donald Trump’s threat to use the military to put down rioting. dozens of the paper’s reporters ‘protested’ on Twitter, claiming such a decision would ‘put black people who work at the Times in danger.’
No, actually, putting troops on the streets along with National Guard and police officers would protect more black lives, but apparently now, the U.S. military — the first integrated institution in our country and one of the most diverse to this date — is racist too.
Anyway, the Times reporters who tweeted some version of “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger,” took a position against what the majority of Americans actually support — which is putting U.S. troops on the streets to quell the rioting (including that which is occurring in New York City, home to The New York Times).
“On its face, a series of young reporters sharing the exact same text in their attempt to feel noble while bullying the bosses who pay their rents is laughable enough. But it’s worth noting where precisely the illiberal vanguard of the New York Times drew the line,” Tiana Lowe writes at the Washington Examiner, adding:
In the past few years alone, the New York Times has published, not in the form of news reporting but direct op-eds, the Taliban, Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and Hamas. No one expects the Gray Lady to publish every extremist with a screed to sell, but there’s no consistent moral code when lines are drawn not for a number of dictators and terrorists who murder civilians and censor journalists but for a U.S. senator sharing an opinion held by the majority of the nation. Claiming it puts black people in danger when not even a majority of black voters oppose it renders it even more farcical.
Lowe goes onto note that the reporters don’t really even believe what they tweeted, because if they did — if they really felt like the paper was putting their black colleagues in danger — they’d quit. And thus far, we’ve not heard of any mass exodus from the ‘paper of record.’
As for being completely tone-deaf about what the majority of Americans want, that’s nothing new for the NY Times, either, as evidenced by the fact that they’ll give voice to murderous dictators but not an American lawmaker.
If you needed any more proof that today’s Left-wing media is filled not with serious reporters digging for truth but Left-wing activist posers, this episode should do the trick.