The New York Times is what it is. A solidly, immovably leftward enterprise. Even its supposedly “conservative” voices – few and far between – tend to, in reality, be moderate liberals.
So what happened when The Times hired Bret Stephens – an actual conservative, albeit one who, in keeping with The Times, avidly dislikes Donald Trump – as an an op-ed regular?
Apparently subscribers went running – not coming, running – in droves; enough so that publisher Athur O. Sulzberger Jr. felt it necessary to write a letter imploring them to reconsider.
From Hadas Gold’s article at politico.com:
New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. is making a personal appeal to subscribers who canceled because the paper hired Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist who has questioned some of the science behind the theory of climate change and the dangers it poses.
In an email sent Friday afternoon and obtained by POLITICO, Sulzberger addresses subscribers who specifically mentioned the hiring of Stephens as a reason that they ended their subscriptions.
“Our customer care team shared with me that your reason for unsubscribing from The New York Times included our decision to hire Bret Stephens as an Opinion columnist. I wanted to provide a bit more context,” the email begins.
The letter goes on to assure these outraged folks that, don’t worry, things are still just the way they always are here. We haven’t changed into some disastrous format — like, you know, offering a serious range of viewpoints. Everyone else is just the way you like them. Feel free to write letters attacking everything Stephens says, and we’ll be delighted to publish them. Now, come back. Please.
Many years ago, when the New York Post was a hard-left newspaper (you have to have some age on you to remember this), publisher Dorothy Schiff decided it would be a great idea to hire William F. Buckley as the paper’s one and only conservative columnist.
It turned out very well for The Post – its readership loved to hate Buckley. Fun, fun, fun all around.
Somehow, though, I don’t get the sense that today’s New York Times readers are similarly disposed. But no one knows for sure.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I recall many years ago, when I read the NY Times every day for its insight and breadth on issues. Then, major issues would often get long opinion pieces – side by side would be two columns, one on each side. Lacking in those columns would be ad hominem, straw men or other violations of serious debate. Just the facts and incisive argument.
I do recall those columns. However, I’m not positive on which planet that was; it is so different from what the NY Times is, today.