So says Allahpundit at Hot Air. He has a point.
Most of our readers know, I think, about how leftist outrage caused the New York Times to revise its headline about President Trump’s condemnation of racism and “white supremacy.” The headline stated, “Trump Urges Unity Against Racism.” This, of course, is precisely what Trump did, whether the left likes it or not.
But the left couldn’t abide an honest statement that casts Trump in other than an unfavorable light. Thus, the headline had to be changed.
More than that, a shaming session was required. Reportedly, the Times’ executive editor called a staff meeting during which he described his paper’s honest headline as “a f–king mess.” He assured the paper’s assembled leftist reporters and editors that the headline-writer “feels terrible.” If the poor guy avoided being sent to reeducation camp, it was probably only by the skin of his teeth.
In a nod to sanity, the executive editor did say that the paper shouldn’t allow itself to be edited by Twitter outrage. However, the paper proceeded to demote an editor for the sin of generating Twitter outrage.
The editor is Jonathan Weisman. His main offense was to tweet the following:
Saying Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minneapolis) are from the Midwest is like saying Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) is from Texas or John Lewis (D-Atlanta) is from the Deep South. C’mon.
Weisman tweeted this in the context of an argument about whether “free stuff” plays well in the Midwest. Former Senator Claire McCaskill said it doesn’t. Having participated in many bruising elections in Missouri, McCaskill should know.
A fool responded to McCaskill by saying that Reps. Tlaib and Omar are from the Midwest. True, but that doesn’t mean their leftism plays well in the region as a whole.
Weisman’s point was that, although free stuff might be popular in parts of Detroit and Minneapolis, these pockets of leftism aren’t representative of the Midwest. The point is valid.
Weisman didn’t criticize Tlaib or Omar. He didn’t suggest that they should leave America (or the Midwest). He merely pointed out that their districts don’t typify the Midwest. Only in an insane environment would making this point in the way Weisman made it land him in hot water.
A second tweet by Weisman stated:
Justice Democrats has backed another primary challenger, this one seeking to unseat an African-American Democrat, Joyce Beatty, who represents Columbus.
The statement is true. However, Beatty’s opponent responded that she is also an African-American Democrat. Weisman replied that Justice Democrats’ endorsement included a photo. The photo shows the opponent, Morgan Harper, to be a light-skinned black (to the extent one can judge from a photo).
I agree with Allahpundit that it isn’t clear from Weisman’s reply whether he was saying he already knew Harper is black or that the photo caused him to believe, mistakenly, that she isn’t. (The Twitter mob apparently inferred, ridiculously, that Weisman was accusing Harper of lying about her race).
If Weisman made a mistaken judgment about Harper’s race, that’s unfortunate but not justification for demoting him. Advising or ordering him to stay off of Twitter should have been sufficient. (It would have been good advice even if he wasn’t mistaken about Harper’s race).
If Weisman knew Harper is black and nonetheless found it noteworthy that Justice Democrats is trying to unseat an incumbent black congresswomen, he was right — it is noteworthy. As Allahpundit observes, “progressives eyeing safe blue seats held by black incumbents have become a point of tension within the [congressional black] caucus.”
The bottom line is that the New York Times is making editorial and personnel decisions based on the dictates of the left — both the Twitter left and the paper’s leftist staff members. The Times probably needs to do this to stay afloat. The left constitutes the Times’ core readership. It must be appeased.
However, at this rate, the left might soon constitute virtually the paper’s only readership. That’s my hope, anyway.