Shame on The Times
That the “official” who penned the whiny, anonymous New York Times hit piece about the Trump administration is a coward is undebatable. That the New York Times stooped as low as it has ever stooped in printing the piece also is undebatable.
In running the rambling, self-serving and fact-shy “resistance” piece, one of the nation’s largest, most prestigious news organizations allowed itself to be no better than the internet swamps where legions of anonymous commenters insult, backbite and hurl invective from the safety of their mothers’ basements.
The piece, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” is bad enough, but what The Times did is worse, allowing itself to be cast – now unquestionably in many minds – at squarely in the ranks of political Left’s relentless march on the Trump presidency. Now, it seems, the newspaper will allow anybody to say anything about Trump or his administration as long it is bad, and then protect their anonymity; that it will do anything – even abandon journalistic principles – to hurt the presidency.
Because of that, we are left to wonder who the person possibly could be, or whether he or she truly is a high-ranking member or official of the Trump administration, or whether the whole thing simply was made up as an avenue to strike at the president. The Times, after all, has been caught before fudging on what a “senior official” might be.
In one instance, an anti-fracking article, it was caught peddling an intern as a senior official, journalist and film maker Phelim McAleer notes, attracting the attention of the New York Times Public Editor Arthur S Brisbane.
“Can an intern be an “official”? It doesn’t sound right to me,” Brisbane stated.
That The Times, or any newspaper for that matter, would publish an anonymous op-ed hit piece and then defend the practice, is almost unbelievable, which points to the real problem The Times’ editors have created. How are we, or anybody else, now to believe anything it says?
To be a whistle-blower requires vetting and transparency so the public can weigh the claims. Without that, such things are simply people yelling in the dark.
That appears to be where The New York Times is headed. Too bad. It once was a better newspaper.
Now it is not.