Main Edition
US
FR
November 29, 2022 - 9:43am
The New York Times’s coverage of the UK has been bugging British conservatives for some while now. For instance, see this 2020 piece by Douglas Murray for UnHerd. You can find more recent examples in the Spectator and the Telegraph.
This could be dismissed as exactly what one would expect. What else are Right-wing pundits going to say about an increasingly Left-wing publication? Add in a dash of wounded national pride and the British backlash almost writes itself.
Except that it’s not just Tories and Brexiteers losing patience with the NYT. For instance, here’s the impeccably liberal Oliver Kamm expressing his frustration in the Times (of London). In particular, he objects to a comparison between Liz Truss and Enoch Powell (which, when one considers their respective attitudes to immigration, bears little scrutiny).
Over the weekend, there’s been yet another British explosion of outrage — this one in reaction to a New York Times article on the UK’s anti-slavery legislation. It’s an odd piece about the supposed plight of a former ‘county lines’ drug dealer who, in 2019, was among the first people to be convicted under the provisions of the Modern Slavery Act.
His story is meant to illustrate a wider allegation that the Act is resulting in racial inequalities. The substantiation, though, is unconvincing. For instance, the piece states that “experts say that, like other criminal justice tools, the modern slavery law is being wielded disproportionately against Black people.” But who are these “experts”? What are their sources? It’s all rather unclear.
Furthermore, instead of focusing on the victims of exploitation — who are, by definition, members of marginalised groups including ethnic minorities — the article places the victimisers front and centre. As a result, the piece loses sight of the fact that the real racism here would be tolerating modern slavery — whatever its form and whoever its perpetrators.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWe should not be drawn into American race politics. It is as posionous as it is dumb. And we should not allow ourselves to take their media seriously. You will usually find that the writer of an article for The New York Times couldn’t find the British Isles on a map of the world. They probably think that it is off the coast of Atlantis and close to Narnia.
Oh, and why wasn’t Princess Malarkey crowned Queen of England? We demand answers!
As an American, I don’t take The NY Times seriously either.
I stopped reading it back in 1998, when they spiked the story on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. The NYT is just a propaganda sheet, and a ludicrous one at that.
Has a great Spelling Bee though. I get ‘genius’ level every time – even though I have account for American spellings
Has a great Spelling Bee though. I get ‘genius’ level every time – even though I have account for American spellings
I stopped reading it back in 1998, when they spiked the story on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. The NYT is just a propaganda sheet, and a ludicrous one at that.
A bit of perspective from across the pond here. Media here is highly partisan and politicized. Almost every paper/magazine/website owes allegiance at some level to political backers from the left, right, or center, and/or depends on pandering to a political base for readership and profit. The NYT, for example, is basically a mouthpiece for woke echo-chamber liberals to hear themselves talk. It’s the American equivalent of the Guardian. Most Americans who aren’t zealots of one side or the other distrust ALL media and plenty of polls confirm this. It’s why this American follows an obscure British website.
As an occasional Guardian reader, in the spirit of seeing opposition thinking and laughing at the woke articles and reader comments, I think you’ve been rather unfair on the Guardian here. The NYT has become so ignorant in its reporting on the U.K. that it has lost all credibility with intelligent people – the Guardian at least bases it’s woke world view on some facts.
Oh, you’re certainly right. I’d pick up the Guardian before the NYT myself. Then again, I’d pick up most any British newspaper before any American one for the reasons mentioned. That was just the closest comparison I could think of that might resonate with British readers. The only American news sources I regularly read are TheHill.com and the non-editorial news releases from Reuters and the AP.
Oh, you’re certainly right. I’d pick up the Guardian before the NYT myself. Then again, I’d pick up most any British newspaper before any American one for the reasons mentioned. That was just the closest comparison I could think of that might resonate with British readers. The only American news sources I regularly read are TheHill.com and the non-editorial news releases from Reuters and the AP.
As an occasional Guardian reader, in the spirit of seeing opposition thinking and laughing at the woke articles and reader comments, I think you’ve been rather unfair on the Guardian here. The NYT has become so ignorant in its reporting on the U.K. that it has lost all credibility with intelligent people – the Guardian at least bases it’s woke world view on some facts.
Indeed. Do take NYT seriously, not as news nor journalism.
Worth mentioning that the ex-BBC chief Mark Thompson was at the helm of the NYT for many years. No need to look for any other source for its U.K. hatred.
As an American, I don’t take The NY Times seriously either.
A bit of perspective from across the pond here. Media here is highly partisan and politicized. Almost every paper/magazine/website owes allegiance at some level to political backers from the left, right, or center, and/or depends on pandering to a political base for readership and profit. The NYT, for example, is basically a mouthpiece for woke echo-chamber liberals to hear themselves talk. It’s the American equivalent of the Guardian. Most Americans who aren’t zealots of one side or the other distrust ALL media and plenty of polls confirm this. It’s why this American follows an obscure British website.
Indeed. Do take NYT seriously, not as news nor journalism.
Worth mentioning that the ex-BBC chief Mark Thompson was at the helm of the NYT for many years. No need to look for any other source for its U.K. hatred.
We should not be drawn into American race politics. It is as posionous as it is dumb. And we should not allow ourselves to take their media seriously. You will usually find that the writer of an article for The New York Times couldn’t find the British Isles on a map of the world. They probably think that it is off the coast of Atlantis and close to Narnia.
Oh, and why wasn’t Princess Malarkey crowned Queen of England? We demand answers!
I’ll point out that, unsurprisingly, no reader comments are allowed for the anti-slavery article. A move the NYT makes only when it’s sure critiques will be universally negative.
True. And it also true for most other liberal-leaning media. You are not allowed to question their ‘wisdom’. It’s all about goose-stepping. They can’t take criticism and comment. It just triggers them. Gets them upset, then they blather or start calling people names.
How could any liberal argue with that piece of fact based wisdom?
How could any liberal argue with that piece of fact based wisdom?
More than a few papers and magazines *cough* The Atlantic *cough* start with turning off comments, then not long after put almost everything behind a paywall.
True. And it also true for most other liberal-leaning media. You are not allowed to question their ‘wisdom’. It’s all about goose-stepping. They can’t take criticism and comment. It just triggers them. Gets them upset, then they blather or start calling people names.
More than a few papers and magazines *cough* The Atlantic *cough* start with turning off comments, then not long after put almost everything behind a paywall.
I’ll point out that, unsurprisingly, no reader comments are allowed for the anti-slavery article. A move the NYT makes only when it’s sure critiques will be universally negative.
I have a much more simple explanation for all of this nonsense. It’s a simple failure of intellect. Those who write such trash shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a student magazine let alone a purportedly serious newspaper.
They’re quite simply – in good old-fashioned British terminology – thick.
I think you’ll find every writer from the NYT comes from the very most prestigious universities in the US. It’s a reflection of higher learning.
I’m not at all surprised!
“the very most prestigious universities in the US” are, with the possible exception of MIT, about on a par with a ‘bog standard comp’ in the UK.
Where did you go to university?
It depends which degree you’re asking me about.
It depends which degree you’re asking me about.
Where did you go to university?
I’m not at all surprised!
“the very most prestigious universities in the US” are, with the possible exception of MIT, about on a par with a ‘bog standard comp’ in the UK.
I think you’ll find every writer from the NYT comes from the very most prestigious universities in the US. It’s a reflection of higher learning.
I have a much more simple explanation for all of this nonsense. It’s a simple failure of intellect. Those who write such trash shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a student magazine let alone a purportedly serious newspaper.
They’re quite simply – in good old-fashioned British terminology – thick.
It is bizarre and infuriating. There was a similar piece criticising joint enterprise criminal liability recently. There is certainly a debate to be had about joint enterprise, but the hot take ‘it’s racist’ is just so shallow.
The US will implode. Never interfere with an enemy making a mistake.
Yes, although I would very much prefer the woke to implode without the US doing so as well.
“Enemy”? Gee, I don’t feel that way about you.
Well you are not on the receiving end
Don’t worry Alison. These guys are mostly Russian trolls.
It is worse than you think Hugh. I am not a Russian troll. I merely put the interest of the UK before the interest of other countries.
It is worse than you think Hugh. I am not a Russian troll. I merely put the interest of the UK before the interest of other countries.
Well you are not on the receiving end
Don’t worry Alison. These guys are mostly Russian trolls.
I regard the USA as ally, and an increasingly important one, given our steady decrease in ability to defend ourselves. For that reason, I’m dismayed that articles which may damage goodwill to us appear in the NYT, but then, that may be the purpose.
The US will not defend you. To be fair, it isn’t its job to do so.
You need defending? Defend yourself.
The NYT hardly reflects the views of most Americans, nor do they have any regard whatsoever for the geopolitical interests of the US or any other country. They are an ideological mouthpiece, period, and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
The US will not defend you. To be fair, it isn’t its job to do so.
You need defending? Defend yourself.
The NYT hardly reflects the views of most Americans, nor do they have any regard whatsoever for the geopolitical interests of the US or any other country. They are an ideological mouthpiece, period, and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
The US is hardly our enemy. The NYT is ot the US.
Yes, although I would very much prefer the woke to implode without the US doing so as well.
“Enemy”? Gee, I don’t feel that way about you.
I regard the USA as ally, and an increasingly important one, given our steady decrease in ability to defend ourselves. For that reason, I’m dismayed that articles which may damage goodwill to us appear in the NYT, but then, that may be the purpose.
The US is hardly our enemy. The NYT is ot the US.
It is only bizarre if you make the common misconception of thinking of the NYT as a newspaper, in the old, UK sense.
It isn’t. All the journalists have been driven out by activists, and it is now a publication of lurid fiction.
Opinion is much cheaper to produce than facts. Sells better, too. Unfortunately, the result is pulp fiction, not journalism. Our Paper of Record is sounding like a broken record.
Well stated. The game today has nothing to do with informing people of what is going on. It is merely a game to get the most eyeballs. Unfortunately, Peter Franklin and all of us commenting are guilty of perpetuating the insanity.
Well stated. The game today has nothing to do with informing people of what is going on. It is merely a game to get the most eyeballs. Unfortunately, Peter Franklin and all of us commenting are guilty of perpetuating the insanity.
It’s a propaganda machine, probably has always been one.
Opinion is much cheaper to produce than facts. Sells better, too. Unfortunately, the result is pulp fiction, not journalism. Our Paper of Record is sounding like a broken record.
It’s a propaganda machine, probably has always been one.
The US will implode. Never interfere with an enemy making a mistake.
It is only bizarre if you make the common misconception of thinking of the NYT as a newspaper, in the old, UK sense.
It isn’t. All the journalists have been driven out by activists, and it is now a publication of lurid fiction.
It is bizarre and infuriating. There was a similar piece criticising joint enterprise criminal liability recently. There is certainly a debate to be had about joint enterprise, but the hot take ‘it’s racist’ is just so shallow.
‘In particular, he objects to a comparison between Liz Truss and Enoch Powell (which, when one considers their respective attitudes to immigration, bears little scrutiny). ‘
Too right! Enoch Powell was a much more substantial politician than Liz Truss! His scepticism of America from a British right -wing view (as opposed to infantile leftist Anti-americanism) also seems increasingly prescient.
Reading Powell’s views on the US he could be described as prophetic, save that what is true now was also true back then, we just choose no to see it
Both Enoch and Liz were wanting more low-wage immigration to get job vacancies filled!
The difference is, that Enoch was running the NHS and joined forces with Birmingham manufacturers to hire the ships from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago!
“Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to “Western values”. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: “No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.” Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): “Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.” “No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.” Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism.”
John Casey, ‘The revival of Tory philosophy‘, The Spectator (17 March 2007)
Reading Powell’s views on the US he could be described as prophetic, save that what is true now was also true back then, we just choose no to see it
Both Enoch and Liz were wanting more low-wage immigration to get job vacancies filled!
The difference is, that Enoch was running the NHS and joined forces with Birmingham manufacturers to hire the ships from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago!
“Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to “Western values”. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: “No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.” Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): “Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.” “No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.” Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism.”
John Casey, ‘The revival of Tory philosophy‘, The Spectator (17 March 2007)
‘In particular, he objects to a comparison between Liz Truss and Enoch Powell (which, when one considers their respective attitudes to immigration, bears little scrutiny). ‘
Too right! Enoch Powell was a much more substantial politician than Liz Truss! His scepticism of America from a British right -wing view (as opposed to infantile leftist Anti-americanism) also seems increasingly prescient.
After 40 years of being NYTIMES subscribers- we unsubscribed 3 years ago and haven’t missed it at all. The paper is a fount of wokeism, intolerance & oft times insanity as pointed out by this author. There are just too many other really interesting and informative outlets today.
After 40 years of being NYTIMES subscribers- we unsubscribed 3 years ago and haven’t missed it at all. The paper is a fount of wokeism, intolerance & oft times insanity as pointed out by this author. There are just too many other really interesting and informative outlets today.
Much like law and education, journalism in the US has become activist-driven. The purpose is not to report the truth, but to skew events to a preconceived ideological goal. The end-game is to scientifically and socially engineer the public into credulous serfs who are bullied and brainwashed into conforming to the dictates of pious experts and politicians – a technocratic form of Neo-feudalism, if you will.
Not just in the US. The entire UK education system and most media have been captured by woke activism, and serve up little more than trite ideology and propaganda. Our erstwhile jewel in the crown, the once universally lauded BBC, is among the worst proponents of this technocratic groupthink.
Not just in the US. The entire UK education system and most media have been captured by woke activism, and serve up little more than trite ideology and propaganda. Our erstwhile jewel in the crown, the once universally lauded BBC, is among the worst proponents of this technocratic groupthink.
Much like law and education, journalism in the US has become activist-driven. The purpose is not to report the truth, but to skew events to a preconceived ideological goal. The end-game is to scientifically and socially engineer the public into credulous serfs who are bullied and brainwashed into conforming to the dictates of pious experts and politicians – a technocratic form of Neo-feudalism, if you will.
The NYT sucks. Shocking revelation. That’s why everyone here has bought a subscription to Unherd. I’m from Canada. We have exactly one mainstream centre-right publication and no TV with a right wing viewpoint.
The NYT sucks. Shocking revelation. That’s why everyone here has bought a subscription to Unherd. I’m from Canada. We have exactly one mainstream centre-right publication and no TV with a right wing viewpoint.
For some years now, Andrew Klavan has referred to it as, “The New York Times, a former newspaper”.
I refer to Andrew Klavan as “A current has been and right wing extremist”.
I refer to Andrew Klavan as “A current has been and right wing extremist”.
For some years now, Andrew Klavan has referred to it as, “The New York Times, a former newspaper”.
The paradox is that, whilst American universities often excel in STEM education, in every other respect they are execrable. In general, Americans are disastrously badly educated. Consequently you have a governing elite in the US that is just plain dumb. You only have to watch any debate in either house of Congress the standard of which, particularly on the Democrat side, is extraordinarily poor – many of these people would struggle as primary school teachers anywhere else in the world. The galloping idiocies of the New York Times are just a reflection of this.
Which American university did you attend to give you this remarkable insight?
Or did you just hear it from Tucker Carlson?
I went to and worked at an American university, and what he says is absolutely true. You have STEM, and most of the rest is a finishing school, only without their one worthwhile course, home economics.
I guess that depends on the quality of the university you attended, old chap. Although I would never question your home economics aptitude…
It really doesn’t, you know. They’re all terrible.
It really doesn’t, you know. They’re all terrible.
I guess that depends on the quality of the university you attended, old chap. Although I would never question your home economics aptitude…
MIT – which is probably the sole exception to the rule I’ve described above. The statistics, according to which the richest nation in the world is barely in the top thirty when it comes to education, bear me out.
I went to and worked at an American university, and what he says is absolutely true. You have STEM, and most of the rest is a finishing school, only without their one worthwhile course, home economics.
MIT – which is probably the sole exception to the rule I’ve described above. The statistics, according to which the richest nation in the world is barely in the top thirty when it comes to education, bear me out.
Which American university did you attend to give you this remarkable insight?
Or did you just hear it from Tucker Carlson?
The paradox is that, whilst American universities often excel in STEM education, in every other respect they are execrable. In general, Americans are disastrously badly educated. Consequently you have a governing elite in the US that is just plain dumb. You only have to watch any debate in either house of Congress the standard of which, particularly on the Democrat side, is extraordinarily poor – many of these people would struggle as primary school teachers anywhere else in the world. The galloping idiocies of the New York Times are just a reflection of this.
Better get the Daily Mail or the Sun if you want rational, unbiased, fact-based journalism!
I take it from this non sequitur and your infantile tantrums above that you’re an NYT fan? How embarrassing for you.
I know actual people like this. Whenever their world view gets challenged, they resort to insults and personal attacks.
An educated mind is one which can entertain an idea they fundamentally disagree with. Unfortunately, it’s a sign of our sad times that much education these days teaches young people what to think rather than how to think.
I know actual people like this. Whenever their world view gets challenged, they resort to insults and personal attacks.
An educated mind is one which can entertain an idea they fundamentally disagree with. Unfortunately, it’s a sign of our sad times that much education these days teaches young people what to think rather than how to think.
I take it from this non sequitur and your infantile tantrums above that you’re an NYT fan? How embarrassing for you.
Better get the Daily Mail or the Sun if you want rational, unbiased, fact-based journalism!