Once, long ago, The New York Times claimed a commitment to diversity of thought
It has become mantra at The New York Times, whether in "news" articles or opinion pieces (but, as the cliche goes, I repeat myself) to assert the falsity of claims the 2020 presidential election "was stolen." Now Republican efforts to ensure that elections are not only free and fair, but that they comply with the Constitution's recognition that state legislatures determine election law, are being traduced into the mendacious assertion that honest elections sought by Republicans "nonetheless represent a huge threat to American democracy itself."
The quote comes from an op-ed article of the "day is night" variety, written by a University of California, Irvine, law professor (no less) by name of Richard L. Hasen. (Does he hold the George Orwell Jurisprudence chair at UCI?)
The title of this mind-twisting screed is: "The G.O.P. Isn't Done Messing With Elections." The following untruth is highlighted in the midst of this op-ed equivalent of O'Brien forcing Winston Smith to agree that four fingers are visible, when only three are: "Republicans are threatening the integrity of vote counting itself.
Behold The New York Times: Not only is it prohibited to say that the left stole the election from President Trump, it must now also be said that Republicans failed to steal the 2020 election and that they will make another attempt in 2024.
How soon the political show trials of hapless Republicans in the dock, with Merrick Garland in the role previously filled in 1930's Moscow by Andrey Vishinsky?
But this is not all, the outrageous Hasen smear of the GOP sent this writer scurrying to Google, to see what the Times said when it first brought forth the Op-Ed page, September 21, 1970. It had been this writer's recollection that the Times touted the op-ed page as a "marketplace of ideas." That phrase did not appear in the paper's statement of intent announcing the op-ed page. Here is what the Times archives brought up at the end of the statement accompanying the birth of Op-Ed:
In furtherance of our belief that the diverse voices of our society must be given the greatest possible opportunity to be heard, we are at the same time approximately doubling the weekday space devoted letters from our readers.
The two pages together—Editorial and Op. Ed.—are designed to create an intellectual forum from which, paraphrase Terence, nothing will be foreign that relates to man and his society.
Behold how greatly The New York Times has reneged on its stated commitment to provide "the diverse voices of our society" on the op-ed page, said more than half a century ago to be "an intellectual forum" for "man and his society." (That last assertion would never appear today, for the rank sexism it proclaims.)
Even the most radical of the Times' most radical base would have to acknowledge that there is nothing diverse about the voices today given the opportunity to be heard in the pages of the paper. Indeed, diversity of voice would likely unleash an avalanche of protests from the paper's anti-American base.
Gone is the paper's commitment to be an "intellectual forum," replaced by its totalitarian commitment to ideological spewing, turning truth on its head, reduces The New York Times to a journal of projection or, to use a newly-favored word among the left's cognoscenti, "gaslighting."
It should indeed be the epitaph of The New York Times: Never in the history of American journalism did so many leftist editorialists publish so many falsehoods indicating so much contempt for the common man.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.