Echoing the Babylon Bee on the Victory Girls website, Deanna Fisher comes to the obvious conclusion: New York Times Officially Becomes College Newspaper.
In that perspective, remember the number of professional scholars and respected historians who were totally unaware about the Gray Lady's 1619 Project, and who were barely allowed to register much of their dissent in the newspaper since the liberals therein obviously knew better.
How relevant, indeed, is the 1619 Project, in the final analysis, when we learn what happened in the wake of a single op-ed in the "paper of record" by a single conservative? (See also: "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!), An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed)
One opinion editorial by Senator Tom Cotton was all it took to break the New York Times.
The senator from Arkansas wrote a piece, published last Wednesday, talked about using the military to restore order in American cities if the police were unable to do so. The sheer pants-wetting freakout by the STAFF of the New York Times, who exploded all over Twitter to whine and moan about Senator Cotton’s op-ed, led to first blame on the editor for “rushing” the piece, then “fact-checking” notes by the NYT added to the page (which contained neither facts nor checks, just an acknowledgement that an almighty temper tantrum was taking place behind the scenes), and now, the editor of the editorial page, James Bennet, has resigned. Whether Bennet resigned on his own, or told to resign, I leave up to you.
Well done, everyone. That surely made everything better, because goodness knows that multiple opinions about different topics are BAD THINGS. There is only ONE narrative, and people like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones are running the asylum now.
What has really happened? All those j-school college kids have moved into the real world. Fed on stories of Woodward and Bernstein and seeing journalism as a platform for “activism,” they have gone on from their college campus newspapers to real world newspapers. And instead of being shown the door when they had a complete hissy fit over words they didn’t like (after hearing and preaching that “speech is violence” all those years in college), publisher A.G. Sulzberger merely announces that James Bennet is out, and he is no more and no less than the academic advisor to the college newspaper formerly known as the New York Times. He has power because he writes the checks, and nothing more. There will be no bad grades. There will only be the pursuit of the woke, and those who are able to fall in line.
It’s also proof, once and for all, that a revolt on the part of the NEWS STAFF was able to change over the leadership of the EDITORIAL department – which means that there really is no dividing line between the two at all.
James Bennet, who is the brother of Colorado Senator (and former presidential candidate, not that anyone remembers) Michael Bennet, represents yet again that cozy, familial relationship between the press and politics (see the brothers Cuomo and the brothers Rhodes), and that still wasn’t enough to save him from being eaten alive by the new generation of “journalists” at the New York Times who see themselves as “activists” instead of reporters – and have killed their chosen profession.
How quickly they forget that the rules they enforce on others can so rapidly be used against them. Just wait for it. The next generation and iteration of “journalists” will someday come walking through the front door of the New York Times – which, by sheer legacy status and advertising dollars, will likely be the last of the print dinosaurs to actually die – and the group that is today celebrating James Bennet’s resignation will find that they are not “woke” enough for the group that comes after them. And Sulzberger will merely wave them away with their own resignations, unless his bottom line is affected. Because Sulzberger no longer runs a real newspaper. He runs a college campus paper, where the kids determine what news is fit to print.
The New York Times had a long run as the “paper of record.” Those days are officially done and over with. The pretense of the wall between news and opinion is finished. Welcome to the New Woke Times, where speech is violence unless it is pre-approved speech.
RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to HistoryThe Bennett firing is good, actually. Now more than ever before NYT is a crusading, far-left publication catering to an aggressively woke subscriber base. The paper deserves that image, because it is accurate. Truth and transparency are good.— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) June 7, 2020
• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery
• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project
• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project
• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"
• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619
• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret
• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”
• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"
• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"
• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice
• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism
• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin
• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more
• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!), An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")
• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory
• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans
• Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise
• 1619 and The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)
• Mary Beth Norton: In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent
• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves
• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")
• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s
• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it
• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century
• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833
• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"
• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding
• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1
• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"
• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere
• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith
• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were
• "Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"
• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"
• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History
• Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …
• Anti-Americanism in the Age of the Coronavirus, the NBA, and 1619