What does the New York Times want?
A reader writes:
I was struck by the New York Times’ online lead story last evening on Mubarak refusing to step down, accompanied by a classic/comical Times propaganda photo of Mubarak looking like an evil zombie. The Times is extremely keen on getting rid of Mubarak, but why? I don’t recall he’s been a monster. I don’t recall the Times running articles exposing his “crimes” prior to this current unrest, or calling for his removal. (Never mind the bloated chutzpah of a U.S. newspaper presuming to engineer the removal of a foreign leader.) And then they run that putrid pile of taqiyya from the MoBro’s that you wrote about this morning.
The liberals’ Villain of the Week
Nile McCoy writes:
In light of the resignation of Mubarak and the Egyptian military taking over as the sole governmental power, one wonders if the New York Times would like to see a similar left-fascist uprising here in the United States, especially if circumstances indicate that conservatives would win back the executive branch in the 2012 elections. If one looks at how the left has “pushed” the outcome in Egypt today, then it should be seen as a trial run to drive conservatives from power, especially in the event it looks like conservatives were to win in a “fair” election.John McNeil writes:
I don’t like to indulge in conspiracy theories, but do you think this push from Obama, the Times, and other institutions of the left to overthrow Mubarak has to do with isolating Israel? I can’t really think of any other reason. As the reader noted, Mubarak has never been portrayed as a “monster” before, and this man has been in power since long before I was born. No one has ever criticized him, but now all of a sudden, the Obama Administration and its media cheerleaders have decided out of the blue that Mubarak must go, when there are plenty of other autocrats far worse than Mubarak.Ray G. writes:
Isn’t it curious how Obama and his supporters cannot hide their enthusiasm for Muslims in Egypt who demonstrate against their government, but Obama and his supporters denigrate Americans as racists and hate-mongers when they show up for Tea Party rallies in favor of reducing the size of the federal government. How strange.February 12
Kilroy M. writes:
As they say, the simplest explanation is often the best. The reader’s thoughts are far too convoluted. It seems far more plausible, given the reign of sentimentalism and spirit of mass democracy among the media elites, that your NYT just jumped onto the “people power” bandwagon. After all, who (among their social group) would argue against such actions from the former oppressed masses of the Third World?LA replies:
I don’t see the reader’s argument as convoluted. I think it is straightforward. He says that the Times has not opposed the Mubarak regime before this, and that it seems unlikely that the Times has suddenly signed onto the Bush global democracy project, which it previously opposed or was cool toward. Why then has the Times so eagerly sought his ouster? The reader suggests the motive is to bring down a U.S. ally, and thus to hurt the U.S. The argument may or may not be correct, but it is not convoluted.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 11, 2011 10:30 AM | Send