Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
They Eat Their Own
The commitment of journalism to the distorted and deceptive Leftist agenda has been something amazing to watch, particularly in the past year. For the most part, everyone has fallen into lockstep with the powers-that-be, either out of a shared agenda or out of fear. Now we can see that even at the highest levels, no one, even in journalism which is dominated by the Left, is safe.
Last week, Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that was met with outrage. (It is now behind a paywall.) Not only did he support President Trump’s commitment to securing the country from the destruction and violence of rioters, but he was accused by the Times of putting people in danger:
The column drew criticism from inside and outside the New York Times newsroom as some readers and journalists interpreted the column as advocating actions that would put protestors and reporters in danger.
Initially, New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger stood behind publishing the column. ‘I believe in the principle of openness to a range of opinions, even those we may disagree with, and this piece was published in that spirit,’ he said in an email to the staff on Thursday, according to a New York Times account.
By Sunday, Sulzberger said in a note sent to staff that was seen by Reuters: ‘Last week we saw a significant breakdown in our editing processes, not the first we’ve experienced in recent years.’
After the essay was published, the paper accused Cotton of making “dubious claims”:
Maybe Bennet would have flagged some of the column’s dubious claims such as ‘some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd.’
Cotton also offered no proof that police officers ‘bore the brunt of the violence’ and that the radical left-wing group Antifa was ‘infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.’
This attack on Cotton’s writing is “dubious”! What in the world is unconvincing about his statements? All over the media, we’ve heard the political elite, from Hollywood to Congress to state governors acclaiming the violence, calling it understandable and appropriate. How much proof do these people need that police officers have been attacked, even killed by members of Antifa? Are we supposed to assume that reports from our own government are deceptive? Are we to assume that Attorney General William Barr is distorting this information for political purposes?
Of course, we are.
That’s why the NYT Editorial Page Editor James Bennet was “forced to resign.”
In another incident, Stan Wischnowski. Executive Editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, resigned. He approved publishing an op-ed by Inga Saffron, the paper’s architecture critic, that was entitled, “Buildings Matter Too.” Her piece was interpreted as equating the death of George Floyd to the destruction of buildings:
Inquirer staff members criticized their management on social media over the headline and in an internal company meeting. More than 40 journalists of color signed an open letter to the paper’s leadership, accusing it of paying lip service to the idea of diversity and inclusion. Dozens stayed home in protest Thursday and, according to one source, will not be docked by management for their actions.
It’s clear that Conservatives are not the only ones who are to be targeted, but anyone, anywhere who bucks the party line, intentionally or not, will be punished. Journalists of every persuasion are at risk of having their words distorted and misinterpreted if anyone decides they have gone beyond the pale. No one is safe. Not only are their ideas intentionally distorted, but any news that criticizes anyone on the Left will be banned.
It’s now clear to everyone: they eat their own.
Published in Journalism
I always loved the Mad Magazine parody of the NYT, “All the News that Fits; We’ll Print”.
I think that is true, although sometimes it definitely works against them. I think they believe if they hold others accountable, they will be seen as wrathful. Politeness can be a serious drawback.
I am praying that people will remember all this craziness come November and that Trump and the Republican party will win in landslides across the nation – not because I’m so enamored with Trump but because the current trends in the Democrat party terrify me. For all the cries coming from the left about authoritarianism and fascism being Trump’s cup of tea and that he’s just itching to be a dictator so look out, I see a lot more of that coming from them than him – a lot more.
#howwegottrump
NYT Editorial Board: “Who you gonna believe, us or your lying eyes?”
Some liars, like my eyes, lie less.
Im afraid there might be some on our side that will say ‘give them what they want and make it stop , if Trump wins they’ll torture us for another four years maybe if we give in they’ll let us have some peace’ .
There is only evidence to the contrary about them ever letting peace reign.
Though an institution worthy of the name institution has an institutional culture that should shape the new arrivals and thereby provide continuity of purpose over a time longer than the employment or participation of particular individuals. If the “institution” changes completely when there is turnover of employees or participants, it’s no longer an institution. If the New York Times is a completely different entity now because the employees changed, then somewhere along the way previous employees failed to preserve the institution by failing to transfer the institutional purpose and culture to a new generation of employees, and the masthead is meaningless.
Just no!!
Precisely! Well said.
Choose the form of your destructor