Walter Duranty’s Holodomor Coverage And Pulitzer
Walter Duranty, who served as its Moscow bureau chief from 1922 through 1936, has been criticized for a series of stories in 1931 on the Soviet Union and won a Pulitzer Prize for his work at that time however, he has been criticized for his denial of widespread famine, most particularly Holodomor, a famine in Soviet Ukraine in the 1930s in which he summarized Russian propaganda, and the Times published, as fact: “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine”.
In 2003, after the Pulitzer Board began a renewed inquiry, the Times hired , professor of Russian history at Columbia University, to review Duranty’s work. Von Hagen found Duranty’s reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and that they far too often gave voice to Stalinistpropaganda. In comments to the press he stated, “For the sake of The New York Times’ honor, they should take the prize away.”The Ukrainian Weekly covered the efforts to rescind Duranty’s prize. The Times has since made a public statement and the Pulitzer committee has declined to rescind the award twice stating, “…Mr. Duranty’s 1931 work, measured by today’s standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short. In that regard, the Board’s view is similar to that of The New York Times itself…”.
New York Times Editors’ Comments On Bias
In 2004, Daniel Okrent, the then-public editor of The New York Times, wrote an editorial in which he explained that when covering some social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, the paper did in fact have a liberal bias.
The New York Times public editor Elizabeth Spayd wrote in 2016 that “Conservatives and even many moderates, see in The Times a blue-state worldview.”
Times public editor Arthur Brisbane wrote in 2012, “When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism for lack of a better term that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.”
Times executive editor Dean Baquet stated, “We have to be really careful that people feel like they can see themselves in The New York Times. I want us to be perceived as fair and honest to the world, not just a segment of it. It’s a really difficult goal. Do we pull it off all the time? No.””
Since Eisenhower ran for president in 1956, the New York Times has not endorsed a single Republican nominee for president, but has endorsed every other Democratic candidate.
Conservative Publisher Rejects Ny Times’ Best
NEW YORK – A company that publishes books by Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter and other conservative authors says it wants nothing to do anymore with The New York Times and its best-seller list.
Regnery Publishing said on Monday it will no longer recognize the Times’ accounting of book sales, meaning its writers can no longer claim to be “New York Times best-selling authors.” That’s a big deal in the book business.
Regnery is annoyed that its book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” was only No. 7 on the Times’ latest best-sellers list even though another organization that tracks sales ranked it No. 1. Regnery says another of its books, “No Go Zones: How Sharia Law is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You,” is also not ranked as highly by the Times as it deserves to be.
The Times noted that conservative authors have routinely ranked high and in great numbers on its best-sellers list.
“Our goal is that the lists reflect authentic best sellers,” Times spokesman Jordan Cohen said. “The political views of authors have no bearing on our rankings, and the notion that we would manipulate the lists to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous.”
The newspaper is a frequent target of conservatives and Republicans, including President Donald Trump. But it’s unusual for a publisher to say, effectively, that it’s taking its ball and going home.
Regnery says the Times’ list gives priority to liberal books.
Read Also: Pay A Nyc Ticket
Menace Enters The Republican Mainstream
Threats of violence have become commonplace among a significant part of the party, as historians and those who study democracy warn of a dark shift in American politics.
- Read in app
-
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
Give this article
- Read in app
New York Times Faces Extended Ban On Project Veritas Coverage
The New York Times building is seen in Manhattan, New York, U.S., August 3, 2020. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., Nov 23 – A New York trial judge on Tuesday extended a ban keeping the New York Times from publishing some materials concerning the conservative activist group Project Veritas, a restriction the newspaper said violated decades of First Amendment protections.
Justice Charles Wood of the Westchester County Supreme Court said his temporary ban imposed on Nov. 18 will run at least until Dec. 1, a deadline for Project Veritas to respond in writing to the Times’ bid to end it.
The judge granted the extension at a 1-3/4-hour hearing in White Plains, which was part of a defamation lawsuit that Project Veritas filed against the Times last year.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com
Project Veritas, led by James O’Keefe, has used what critics view as deceptive tactics to expose what it describes as liberal media bias.
It has objected to a Times article that drew from memos from a Project Veritas lawyer, and purported to reveal how the group worked with its lawyers to “gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.”
Wood said as the hearing began that the case involved a clash between two “bedrock principles” of law:”freedom of the speech and freedom of the press, and attorney-client privilege.”
Read Also: How To Submit Poetry To New York Times Magazine
Trumpist Conservatism Is Motivated Not By Ideas But By Resentments
So what motivates this swell of right-wing support for Trump? At this point, though many people on all sides still refuse to acknowledge it, the evidence is overwhelming: It was cultural backlash, against immigrants, minorities, uppity women, liberals, and all the other forces seen as dislodging traditional white men from their centrality in American culture.
I recommend browsing through this thread, which rounds up more than a dozen studies, papers, and surveys:
1) Trump support in 2016 was strongly correlated w/ racial resentment & sexism / tweetstorm kanvzd here
T. R. Ramachandran
They all point in the same direction: Race and gender had unusually high salience in the 2016 election, and what distinguished Trump supporters most of all, more than income or education, was racism and misogyny, i.e., feelings of hostility toward minorities and women.
What Trump revealed, in the most dramatic way possible, is that the conservative base in the US today is driven not by ideology but by white resentment. Thats the underlying thread. Trump may lurch back and forth on policy or more often, demonstrate an almost cosmic ignorance of policy but he speaks to, and in the voice of, Americas angry whites, who want their imagined old America back. He is the prototypical Fox News viewer, tossing off endless insults, conspiracy theories, and furious aggrievement.
How can the Times opinion page expose its readers to that?
Listen To This Article
To hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, .
At a conservative rally in western Idaho last month, a young man stepped up to a microphone to ask when he could start killing Democrats.
When do we get to use the guns? he said as the audience applauded. How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people? The local state representative, a Republican, later called it a fair question.
In Ohio, the leading candidate in the Republican primary for Senate blasted out a video urging Republicans to resist the tyranny of a federal government that pushed them to wear masks and take F.D.A.-authorized vaccines.
When the Gestapo show up at your front door, the candidate, Josh Mandel, a grandson of Holocaust survivors, said in the video in September, you know what to do.
And in Congress, violent threats against lawmakers are on track to double this year. Republicans who break party ranks and defy former President Donald J. Trump have come to expect insults, invective and death threats often stoked by their own colleagues and conservative activists, who have denounced them as traitors.
But historians and those who study democracy say what has changed has been the embrace of violent speech by a sizable portion of one party, including some of its loudest voices inside government and most influential voices outside.
Understand the U.S. Capitol Riot
On Jan. 6, 2021, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.
Don’t Miss: Can I Register A Car Online In New York
If Conservatives Don’t Like The New York Times They Don’t Have To Read It Unlike In The Not
The biggest news story from last week has nothing to do with spiking coronavirus rates or U.S. sanctions on communist China in the wake of its crackdown on Hong Kong protesters. The blockbuster news, according to some conservative publications and my social media feed, is that a center-right columnist at the left-leaning New York Times tendered her resignation.
My immediate, embarrassing thought after reading about Bari Weiss’ travails at “The Gray Lady” is that her widely circulated departure letter was the first thing I’ve ever read from her. She complained about “constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views,” which is troubling. I’m usually against washing dirty laundry in public, but her missive raised relevant points about media bias.
I’ve written opinion pieces for the Times without pushback, but have experienced enough incidents as a libertarian journalist to understand her point. After the announcement, Fox Newsan outlet that runs opinions ranging from those who adore President Trump to those who merely like himran a blistering column about journalism’s “woke mob.”
In my years in journalism, I’ve never seen so many conservatives who are this upset about the media. The nation’s great newspapers, John Steele Gordon wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal, “have moved away from even the pretense of political neutrality.” He championed the New York Herald, which in 1835 began a tradition of balanced reporting.
Justice Neil Gorsuch On Assisted Suicide Euthanasia And Abortion
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, dissented last year from a Supreme Court decision striking down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law. But he has not written or said much publicly about whether the constitution protects a right to abortion. There is good reason, though, to think he has given the topic a good deal of thought.
He is the author of a 2006 book called The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, which explored related issues and glancingly addressed abortion.
Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, he wrote, adding that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. This led him to support existing laws barring assisted suicide and euthanasia.
But that broad statement did not answer the question of whether a fetus is a human life in the sense that Justice Gorsuch meant, or where he stands on Roe v. Wade.
Under Roes express holding, Justice Gorsuch wrote, a fetus does not qualify as a person.
In a footnote, he described a contrary view from a 1986 dissent. Notably, it came from Justice Byron R. White, for whom Judge Gorsuch worked as a law clerk in 1993 and 1994. The right to terminate a pregnancy differs from the right to use contraceptives because the former involves the death of a person while the latter does not, Judge Gorsuch wrote, describing his old bosss views.
Don’t Miss: How To Submit Poetry To New York Times Magazine
How The Fbi Raid On Project Veritas Helped Protect The New York Times
Several observers have pointed out the terrible optics and even worse legal and cultural implications of the FBIs raids earlier this month on three undercover journalists homes. Since the reporters organization, Project Veritas, is a political opponent of the American regime, the raids echo government behavior in unfree countries such as Russia, China, and Turkey.
Yet theres another, less remarked, aspect to this story. Its the raids effect of protecting a longtime, top-tier deep state information operations partner, The New York Times.
Project Veritas is a threat to The New York Times, not only in some of its undercover reporting about Times employees but also in its lawsuit against the Times for defamation. Curiously, then, The New York Times appeared to be aware of the raids about as soon as they commenced, as well as possibly obtaining private information about Project Veritas from the FBI operation.
Project Veritas founder OKeefe noted: Within an hour of one of our reporters homes being secretly raided by the FBI, The New York Times we are currently suing for defamation contacted the Project Veritas reporter to ask for comment. We do not know how The New York Times knew about the execution of a search warrant at our reporters home, or the subject matter of the search warrant, as the grand jury investigation is secret.
What Happens In Other States If The Court Upholds The Mississippi Law
If the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi law, access to legal abortion in many other states could quickly change. Much depends on how exactly the court upholds the law, and to what extent that ruling weakens or overturns Roe vs. Wade, the courts 1973 decision that extended federal protections for abortion.
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, 26 states are certain or likely to ban legal abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a group that tracks womens reproductive health legislation.
A dozen states have so-called trigger bans in place that would effectively stop all abortions in the state if Roe were overturned. Eleven states have abortion bans at about six weeks of pregnancy that are not in effect, and a similar ban is in effect in Texas.
States could also quickly move to pass or enforce laws to similar Mississippis. Anti-abortion activists and lawmakers have worked for years to pass dozens of abortion restrictions and hold sway in state legislatures. Even now, in anticipation of a Mississippi ruling in their favor, activists in Ohio are pushing to pass a trigger ban with hopes it could be in effect by the time the Supreme Court rules.
Charles Savage
Read Also: How To Pay A Ticket Online New York
Protesters Gather Outside The Supreme Court Their Chants Echoing Across Capitol Hill
Demonstrators have spread out outside the Supreme Court building as the justices hear arguments in the Mississippi abortion case inside.
Music, chants, and the exhortations of religious figures echoed off the Capitol building across the street, and lawmakers for and against abortion rights briefly joined the crowds to show their support.
Charles Savage
Rikelman is done. Now the solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, is speaking — adding the Biden administrations support for the challengers seeking to keep Roe and Casey.
Charles Savage
Justice Barrett asks questions suggesting the viability line is arbitrary, versus some other line like trimesters. Rikelman argues that it is principled because it is objective and doesnt delve into philosophical questions like when life begins.
Charles Savage
Justice Kavanaugh lists a long line of major and celebrated cases in which the Supreme Court overruled precedents. If the court had adhered to stare decisis in those cases, he says, the country would be a much different place. So if the court thinks Roe was wrongly decided, why doesnt that history suggest they should overturn it and return to a position of neutrality and it will be okay. Rikelman says it requires special justification not present here, where there has been a rule for five decades and womens liberty interest in autonomy is still the same as it always has been.
Carl Hulse
Charles Savage
Stare decisis doesnt hold much force for you? Judge Sykes asked.
Carl Hulse
A New York Appeals Court Judge Rejected The New York Times’ Request To Lift An Order Temporarily Blocking It From Publishing Or Seeking Documents Related To The Conservative Activist Group Project Veritas
- Country:
- United States
A New York appeals court judge rejected the New York Times’ request to lift an order temporarily blocking it from publishing or seeking documents related to the conservative activist group Project Veritas. Friday’s order from Justice Leonard Austin of the state Appellate Division in Brooklyn means the Times cannot use the materials until a Nov. 23 hearing on whether the prohibition should continue for a longer period.
The Times was appealing a Thursday order from another judge that it called an unconstitutional prior restraint, a view shared by some First Amendment advocates. “Today’s decision to allow the injunction is deeply disappointing,” Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said in an email. “We look forward to explaining our position in court.”
Project Veritas did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
- READ MORE ON:
Recommended Reading: New York Times Magazine Poetry Submissions
The New York Times And Conservative Books
Far be it from me to defend the books section of The New York Times, but this complaint from Tim Graham misses the mark:
This weeks list of New York Times best-selling books proves as usual that the Times doesnt review conservative best-sellers. The nonfiction list was topped by Things That Matter, a collection of columns by Charles Krauthammer and then by Killing Jesus by Bill OReilly and Martin Dugard. The childrens middle-grade list is led by Rush Limbaughs Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims. There has been no Times review of these books.
The Times can review whatever it pleases, and there is nothing odd in it ignoring run-of-the-mill books by conservative personalities like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. After all, even The Wall Street Journals somewhat more conservative review section ignored Palin and Limbaugh, and rightly so.
Even if The Times has dropped the pose of being unbiased, such reviews keep readers from dying of boredom, which should probably be a priority for newspaper editors these days.