Trump-loathing liberals were delighted when New York Times publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger wrote a long op-ed in The Washington Post attacking Donald Trump as a threat to press freedom. Start with Sulzberger-coddling Brian Stelter:
NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger is out with a crucial new essay about risks to press freedom. Read it: https://t.co/ezBi68doY7 pic.twitter.com/31eN7zHtfL
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) September 5, 2024
The headline?
How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America
Some foreign leaders have ruthlessly curtailed journalism. U.S. politicians could draw from their playbook.
Sulzberger compared Trump to the leaders of Hungary, India, and Brazil.
"As they seek a return to the White House, former president Donald Trump and his allies have declared their intention to increase their attacks on a press he has long derided as “the enemy of the people," he wrote. This article essentially argues Trump is the enemy of the people, a consistent leftist-media theme.
He then quotes from Trump making threats of having them "scrutinized." Sulzberger and others equate scrutiny or criticism of the press with somehow undercutting freedom of the press. So using your First Amendment right to say "The New York Times is a leftist rag" is somehow against the First Amendment.
Sulzberger preposterously claimed he believes in "independent journalism," recounting the words of his great-great grandfather Adolph Ochs saying the times would report "without fear or favor." Anyone who thinks the Times doesn't favor the Left isn't reading the Times. He proclaimed:
As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence, I have no interest in wading into politics. I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection. It is beyond shortsighted to give up journalistic independence out of fear that it might later be taken away.
Okay, so "I have no interest in wading into politics, but this Trump guy is a danger to freedom of speech." So that would suggest "don't vote for Trump." The Times has officially opposed Trump. They've endorsed every Democratic nominee for president since JFK in 1960. That's "neutrality" and "independent journalism" for you.
So what about Biden and Harris? Biden has never granted an interview to Sulzberger's paper since he became president. Yeah, that's unfortunate, Sulzberger says, but he's for the free press in his rhetoric, if not his behavior:
Every president since the country’s founding has complained about the pesky questions of reporters who seek to keep the public informed. This includes President Joe Biden, who spoke glowingly about the importance of the free press but whose systematic avoidance of unscripted encounters with independent journalists has defied long-standing precedent and allowed him to evade questions about his age and fitness.
But "Trump stands out for his aggressive and sustained efforts to undermine the free press." Trump operates on a transactional basis: You come after me, I come after you. But the press arrogantly proclaim themselves to be the most essential players in democracy, even as they seek to rig every election with their biased output.
PS: Sulzberger knows his paper emptied a dump truck or two on the Hunter Biden laptop. As I wrote shortly after the 2020 election:
Add the spin in The New York Times front-page headline the Sunday before Election Day: "Foiled Once, Giuliani's Team Peddles More Dirt." There were three photographs in the story: one of President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, one of former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and one of Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui. The story focused much more on their machinations than on Hunter's.
One could just as easily demonize the daily output of The Times in a similar way by referencing The Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger in a headline: "Foiled in 2016, Sulzberger's Team Peddles More Dirt on the Trumps."
