Why Did the New York Times Let Itself Be Used as a Mule?
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.
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.