#Jonathan B.Last

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

New York Times publishes op-ed claiming that Donald Trump's popularity is due to fact that he is a moderate.

What happened. On Monday, the NYTimes published a guest editorial by Matthew Schmitz entitled, “The Secret of Trump’s Appeal Isn’t Authoritarianism.” (The article is behind a paywall and I am not wasting one of my gift subscriptions to make it available.)

Mr. Schmitz's thesis is “Mr. Trump enjoys enduring support because he is perceived by many voters — often with good reason — as a pragmatic if unpredictable kind of moderate.”

Schmitz then attempts to normalize Trump's hate speech, racism, calls for violence, and erratic behavior as something we should expect from a lovable old uncle who doesn’t know when to stop saying stupid things.

Why it matters.  Democrats rightfully feel that the media is sleepwalking into a fascist regime by normalizing Trump with false equivalencies, reckless “both siderisms,” and inane “whataboutisms.” They do so in the pursuit of alleged “fairness” that obscures and denies the truth. While the media rises to the challenge on occasion, they relinquish any progress—and credibility—they achieve by pandering to the likes of Matthew Schmitz.

As I was preparing to explain why the NYTimes is acting recklessly by publishing Schmitz’s laundering of Trump's Nazi rhetoric, a reader sent me a piece by Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark that does a better job than I ever could. See Jonathan V. Last, The Bulwark, The New York Times Is Part of the Effing Problem.

I urge you to read Last’s essay, start to finish. But if you don’t, the following gives the gist of his criticism of the Times:

The piece is filled with both euphemism and the passive voice, all in an attempt to obscure reality from readers and present a sympathetic case for Trump.

Look at this passage:

“To be sure, Mr. Trump’s wild rhetoric, indifference to protocol, and willingness to challenge expertise have been profoundly unsettling to people of both political parties. His term in office was frequently chaotic, and the chaos seemed to culminate in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021.”

This might be the most misleading passage ever published in the paper of record.

It was not Trump’s “indifference to protocol” which was “unsettling” to people. And the “chaos” of Trump’s term did not “seem” to culminate in a “riot” at the U.S. Capitol.

If you came down from Mars and simply read today’s NYT op-ed, you would have absolutely no idea that [January 6 was a violent insurrection]. Instead, you’d think that Trump was some kind of a ne’er-do-well or scamp. [¶]

But you gotta have both sides? I guess?

The Times does this a lot—running cover for authoritarians by publishing outrageously misleading “opinion” pieces in the name of airing “both sides” of the debate.

I won’t catalog the many ways that Schmitz attempts to excuse, minimize, and normalize Trump's hate speech—Jonathan Last does that ably in his article.

So, should you cancel your subscription to the NYTimes? As I suggested yesterday, the better strategy is to write to the Times to let the editors know what you think about their decision to normalize Trump immediately after he invoked Hitler’s “poisoning the blood of our nation” speech.

Many readers have asked how they can reach the journalists and editors at leading newspapers. Please see the helpful links posted in the Comment section by readers in response to yesterday’s newsletter: Comments - Help shape the narrative! - by Robert B. Hubbell (substack.com).

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]