Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: No Times this time
newsdepo.com
You’re likely to notice some missing names from this week’s Sunday APR. While junior high scold Maureen Dowd, climate change denier Bret Stephens, and pope-lecturer Ross Douthat have long been on the Not Appearing In This Picture list, they are joineAbbreviated Pundit Round-up: No Times this time
You’re likely to notice some missing names from this week’s Sunday APR. While junior high scold Maureen Dowd, climate change denier Bret Stephens, and pope-lecturer Ross Douthat have long been on the Not Appearing In This Picture list, they are joined this week by … everyone. At least, everyone who writes for the New York Times. The reason to drop the Times editorial page comes partly from the attitude that the publication has displayed in articles and interviews going back well before the election. It’s the way they devoted the entire front page to the vital subject of Hillary Clinton’s email a week before the election. It’s the way they twice wrote major articles in that final week dismissing the important of the Trump–Russia connection, refuting evidence appearing in other publications, and giving a categorical denial that the FBI was conducting an investigation. Another part is in the unfathomable failure to address those stories and provide a correction — either the New York Times was taken in by sources that painted it a completely inaccurate picture of the state of both the investigation into Clinton’s emails and the FBI’s evidence against Trump, or the New York Times deliberately distorted the available information, using its resources and position within the media to sell the nation on a lie and suppress developing news. The maddening thing is that, a year and a half later, we still don’t know the answer. But the final reason for not including the New York Times in the APR is the largest — the New York Times just showed us that they consider their editorial page disposable. This part week, they not only suspended publication of their normal articles and editorials, and turned the page over to letters, they placed a deliberate filter on those letters, allowing only those that supported Donald Trump. You don’t have to wonder why they did it. The Times editorial board provided the explanation. The Times editorial board has been sharply critical of the Trump presidency, on grounds of policy and personal conduct. Not all readers have been persuaded. In the spirit of open debate, and in hopes of helping readers who agree with us better understand the views of those who don’t, we wanted to let Mr. Trump’s supporters make their best case for him as the first year of his presidency approaches its close. That’s a staggering statement. It’s an admission that they are opening their entire page for a single purpose — “making the case” for Donald Trump. It’s a decision that demeans not just the writers who normally appear in that space, but the board’s own editorials. It’s a statement and a position that isn’t just intrinsically and intentionally biased, but deeply harmful to journalism as a whole. It’s a statement that a news source must apologize for telling the truth—for giving their best, considered opinion— if there are people who don’t like it. That decision is simply poisonous. Unsupportable in any sense. Will the New York Times miss whatever level of traffic gets directed from this column on Sunday mornings? Almost certainly not. And I apologize if one of your favorites was left on the cutting room floor. Now come on in. Let’s read other people. Read more