Could there be some signs of life in the legacy media? By “life,” of course, I mean “a return to actual objective reporting, as opposed to yellow journalism, panic-mongering, partisanship, and outright dishonesty.”
The New York Times was once the nation’s newspaper of record. I remember being a little kid, going into a magazine store in a small town in eastern Iowa in the early ’70s, and asking the Old Man why the Times was on sale even in our little Iowa community. “Because,” Dad said, “It’s pretty much the nation’s newspaper.” It was, then, back when the media was mostly still newsprint.
In recent years, the Gray Lady has become a hyper-partisan fish-wrapper. It was interesting to see them do some actual reporting on the checkered background of the Big Apple’s Democrat nominee for mayor, and it was telling that not only NYT readers but staff were outraged at the notion. As it happens, attorney, legal analyst, and commentator Jonathan Turley has some details and some interesting thoughts.
This week, the New York Times experienced an uprising in its ranks and among its readers. The paper was denounced by its own staff and liberal pundits called for the entire editorial staff to be canned. Why? Because The New York Times actually reported news that was deemed harmful to the Democrats, specifically Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani. The newspaper took the additional step of publishing a cringing explanation of why it reported the news that Mamdani lied on his Columbia application in claiming to be black.For liberals, it was an utter nightmare. For a party still defined by identity politics, Mamdani’s false claim over his race left many uncertain about how to react.The left has always maintained a high degree of tolerance for false claims by its own leaders, from Sen. Elizabeth Warren claiming to be a native American to Sen. Richard Blumenthal claiming to have served in the Vietnam War.
Mr. Turley is kinder in his rhetoric than I would be: In the cases of, for instance, Senator Warren and “Da Nang Dick” Blumenthal, I would note outright that they lied, deliberately, knowingly, for personal gain. That’s unforgivable, and in a sane world, it would cause the voters to spew them out of office. But the left isn’t about that, although they are quick to start screaming for impeachment and/or prosecution if a Republican politician so much as gets a parking ticket.
Here’s the nub of the issue, though, and Mr. Turley nails it:
The problem is when a news eco-chamber for many readers is shattered by an errant outbreak of journalism. Many Times readers live within a hermetically sealed news silo, relying on MSNBC for cable, The New York Times for print, and BlueSky for social media. You can literally go all day without being exposed to an opposing view or fact. Then suddenly this happens.
The result is often anger. It is the same response many in higher education have to “triggering” views being expressed on campus by conservative or libertarian speakers.
Ay, there’s the rub.
Why would the left be so concerned about silencing dissent? There may be an answer. There is an old, well-known saying, attributed to people including William F. Buckley and Dr. Charles Krauthammer, that states: Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are evil. This is in large part what drives their incivility, their anger, and even their violence.
This is the reason behind much of the perpetual anger and even violence from the left. The right may think the angry shouters on the left are stupid, but as long as the leftists aren’t brain-damaged, they may be educated – or persuaded. Add to this that conservatives generally don’t naturally start off being uncivil. Conservatives tend to see civility as a virtue.
But leftists, with their reflexive belief that conservatives are evil, start with incivility, with anger, with attempts to silence, and given their assumption, why wouldn’t they? Leftists see incivility and outrage as a virtue when dealing with those whom they childishly see as evil. They are not interested in learning what the other side thinks, the reasoning behind their positions; they want the right silenced, and what’s more, they want anything contrary to their existing opinions, their leftist heroes, silenced as well.
Censorship, then, and even violence, may be condoned. That’s the source of the outrage shown by the New York Times’ readers and even staff, just because the Gray Lady publishes some mild criticism of one of the left’s darlings, the self-professed “democratic socialist” Zohran Mamdani.
Could the New York Times be returning to some semblance of honest journalism? It would be great to see. But their readership is limited now to the left, and the left aren’t interested in facts. We’ve seen that time and again. They are only interested in seeing their prejudices serviced, and that’s something the legacy media has, for many years now, been more than happy to do. And, if I had to hazard a guess, it would be that the New York Times will give in to the shouters.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie.
Help us continue exposing their grift by reading news you can trust. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
