www.thebulwark.com Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:4400::6812:2418  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

JoinSign in
Home
Podcasts
Newsletters
Chat
Special Projects
Events
Founders
Store
Archive
About



Share this post

WHY DID THE NEW YORK TIMES LET ITSELF BE USED AS A MULE?

www.thebulwark.com
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
The Triad


WHY DID THE NEW YORK TIMES LET ITSELF BE USED AS A MULE?


RICH LOWRY GOT THE GRAY LADY TO BEND OVER SO DADDY TRUMP WOULD SEE HIS GENIUS
IDEA.

Jonathan V. Last
Aug 27, 2024
∙ Paid
642
Share this post

WHY DID THE NEW YORK TIMES LET ITSELF BE USED AS A MULE?

www.thebulwark.com
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
645
Share


The editing process at the New York Times Opinion section. (JODY AMIET/AFP via
Getty Images)


1. THE LIBERAL MEDIA


Yesterday the New York Times published an op-ed by Rich Lowry arguing that
Donald Trump can beat Kamala Harris by attacking her character and calling her
“weak.”

Why did they publish this piece?

Lowry’s essay isn’t aimed at Times readers. He is not explaining reality.1 His
op-ed does not add any value for the NYT audience.

The piece is little more than a memo to the Trump campaign. Lowry thinks he has
an insight into how Trump could attack Harris, but because no one at the
campaign cares what Rich has to say, he convinced the Times op-ed page to mule
his ideas directly to Trump.

Why would America’s paper of record consent to be used like this by a
conservative sad-sack?2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we have to do a brief aside on the actual text of the Lowry piece, because
it’s a window into the Times’s motivations. Have a look at the following
paragraph:

> She didn’t do more as vice president to secure the border or to address
> inflation because she didn’t care enough about the consequences for ordinary
> people. She doesn’t care if her tax policies will destroy jobs. She has been
> part of an administration that has seen real wages stagnate while minimizing
> the problem because the party line matters to her more than economic reality
> for working Americans.

Just as a matter of editing:

 * “She didn’t do more as vice president to secure the border or to address
   inflation because she didn’t care enough about the consequences for ordinary
   people.”
   
   * What cite or source is there for the claim “she didn’t care enough about
     the consequences for ordinary people”?

 * “She doesn’t care if her tax policies will destroy jobs.”
   
   * Again: Link please? Just one example, anywhere, of Harris saying that she
     doesn’t care if tax policies destroy jobs.

 * “She has been part of an administration that has seen real wages stagnate . .
   .”
   
   * “Stagnate” is a slippery word. The reality is that inflation-adjusted wages
     have grown steadily since June 2022. Real wage growth has been net positive
     every month for the last year.

The reason I’m picking this paragraph apart is because these editing choices
make it clear that the Times isn’t trying to serve its readers by giving them
the best factual understanding of reality.

Instead, the Times is trying to serve the op-ed writer, by giving him as much
rhetorical leeway as it can countenance. Even if it means that he’s doing
sleight of hand with its audience.

And it all reminds me of my favorite non-Bulwark podcast.




THIS POST IS FOR PAID SUBSCRIBERS

Join
Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
PreviousNext
© 2024 Bulwark Media
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture
Share
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other



This site requires JavaScript to run correctly. Please turn on JavaScript or
unblock scripts