The New York Times' Republicans-only Opinion Feature
A regular New York Times opinion feature includes outside writers -- but only conservatives
If you read yesterday’s New York Times, you likely came across a feature headlined “‘Trump Brought Darkness; Harris Brought Light’: 14 Writers on Who Won the Presidential Debate.” If you read it closely, you might have noticed that of the 14 writers in question, eight work directly for The New York Times and six are outside contributors. The eight Times employees include a relatively even mix of liberals and conservatives.1 The six outside contributors, on the other hand, are 100 percent conservative.
Wild, right? Well, we’re just getting started.
The New York Times published similar features after each night of the Democratic convention last night. Four nights, four pieces, a total of 13 appearances by outside contributors with clear ideological backgrounds or affiliations … all 13 of them conservatives.
And we are not done yet!
In July The New York Times did the same thing for the Republican convention: Four nights, four pieces, a total of 17 appearances by outside contributors with clear ideological backgrounds or affiliations … all 17 of them conservatives.
All together these nine opinion roundups feature 36 appearances by outside contributors with readily-apparent ideological backgrounds or affiliations — and all 36 are conservatives. (To be clear, there are fewer than 36 people involved; the Times turned to most of the right-wing writers multiple times.)
Here’s the list:
Dan McCarthy, editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review (4 times)
Josh Barro, former Manhattan Institute fellow (3 times)
Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason Magazine editor (4 times)
Kevin Williamson, most famous for advocating hanging women who have abortions
Kristen Soltis Anderson, Republican pollster (8 times)
Liam Donovan, Republican strategist formerly with the National Republican Senatorial Committee (5 times)
Matt Labash, writer formerly with The Weekly Standard (7 times)
Matthew Continetti, founding editor of Free Beacon; also previously of National Review and The Weekly Standard
Peter Wehner, worked in three Republican presidential administrations (3 times)
That’s two (2) guys named Matt who used to work for The Weekly Standard and zero (0) liberals.
Two (2) people who are literally Republican Party political operatives, and zero (0) liberals.
The Times’ own roster of columnists is relatively ideologically diverse. Not perfectly so, and I have plenty of objections with the paper’s decision to give such a platform to consistently dishonest writers like Bret Stephens, but the roster in general and as featured in these “X writers react to Y” roundups is fairly diverse. But the fact that the outside voices the paper turns to for these roundups are exclusively conservative speaks volumes about the paper’s biases and agenda.
In case you are so inclined: letters@nytimes.com
Charles M. Blow, Jamelle Bouie, Ross Douthat, David French, Pamela Paul and Lydia Polgreen, Binyamin Appelbaum, Michelle Cottle. Some of them fit more neatly than others on an ideological spectrum. I’m not particularly interested in debating in this space where each of them lies on such a spectrum.
This is the email
letter I just sent.
It's sad as to what The NY Times has become. I'm native to Brooklyn and started reading The NY Times back in the 70s. It was my choice of newspaper for my commute for 38 years. But I could see the writing on the wall - I retired in 2017 - as the paper morphed from an all-inclusive news, occasionally with a liberal lean - to a omission-filled, misleading-headline, rag that purposely elected Trump in 2016. The Times dwelt on Clinton's emails - a singular issue while ignoring her years of service - while giving the Russian-controlled, charity scam artist, racist, "pxxxy-grabbing, disabled ridiculing, compulsive liar a pass. Equating one thing about Clinton with hundreds of things about Trump.
I canceled my subscription and any connection long ago but occasionally see an issue through a family member and whatever is posted in the media. Even get to see a front page now and then. Skipping legitimate stories to push Trump lies as truths, only-conservative or MAGA visiting columnists, writing the most misleading of headlines: the Times has become what it most loathed years ago: media with no integrity. I would think you would be ashamed but I'm certain you lost that ability years ago in search of dollars and clicks.
I'm ashamed for you.
The games The NY Times plays with headlines are blatant. There’s also their tendency to use photos of Harris that are not flattering - especially when they pair them with photos of Trump that do not reflect his current appearance. This is all too consistent to be entirely a matter of chance.