National Review: Text messages contradict New York Times, support Bari Weiss claim that Times senior editor wanted Chuck Schumer's opinion on Tim Scott op-ed



A second source has reportedly come forward to support former New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss' jaw-dropping claim that an editor at the Times once insisted that Democratic Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) be consulted before the paper published an op-ed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.).

The New York Times has repeatedly denied the allegation. But National Review writer Nate Hochman reported Monday that a source "with direct knowledge of the matter" provided text messages from a senior New York Times editor that backed up Weiss' account and even shared the email address of Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman.

\u201cSCOOP: The NY Times has repeatedly denied @bariweiss's explosive claim that a senior NYT opinion editor insisted on "checking with" Chuck Schumer before running an op-ed by Tim Scott. But messages we've seen from a second source can confirm Weiss\u2019s story.\nhttps://t.co/ADNXlSoz4k\u201d
— Nate Hochman (@Nate Hochman) 1660409974

Last Wednesday, Weiss interviewed Scott for an episode of her podcast, "Honesty with Bari Weiss," during which she told the South Carolina lawmaker that New York Times editors in 2020 had debated whether or not to run an op-ed from Scott on police reform in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.

Weiss, who cited "constant bullying" from colleagues as a reason for her departure from the Times in July 2020, alleged that a senior opinion editor had instructed a junior colleague to consult with Schumer before publishing Scott's op-ed.

"I was at the New York Times, and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill and why it fell apart," Weiss recounted. "And this is the part I’m not sure if you know — there was a discussion about the piece and whether or not we should run it, and one colleague, a more senior colleague, said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?’"

"Wow," Scott said.

"And the more junior colleague said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then — and here’s the pretty shocking part — the more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it,'" Weiss continued.

"And the colleague, the younger one, refused. Because he said — because that colleague said it wasn’t an ethical thing to do," she said.

The New York Times has vehemently denied this in public comments to multiple media outlets. "New York Times Opinion never seeks outside approval or consultation whether to publish guest opinion essays," a spokesman for the Times told TheBlaze on Friday.

New York Times Communications repeated the denial in a tweet responding to Scott, who accused the paper of silencing him.

\u201c.@nytopinion does not seek outside approval or consultation before publishing anything. This is simply not how journalism works. Times Opinion publishes a wide spectrum of diverse voices, and we always welcome hearing from more.\u201d
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimes Communications) 1660348277

However, National Review reportedly obtained text messages that contradict the Times' statements and support Weiss' account. National Review's source "shared the contents of messages that contradict the Times’ statements and reaffirm Weiss’s account. They are consistent with Weiss’s recollection that a senior editor at the Times opinion page questioned whether Republicans cared about minority rights and directed a staff member to send the Scott op-ed to Schumer’s office, though the junior editor apparently did not do so," Hochman wrote Monday.

The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

NY Times columnist gets slammed after admitting he was wrong about Trump voters: 'An absolute masterpiece of idiocy'



New York Times columnist Bret Stephens offered readers a mea culpa this week involving former President Donald Trump, a reflection that enraged Trump's detractors.

What did Stephens say?

In a column published on Thursday, Stephens admitted the "worst line" he ever wrote was one in which he outright disparaged Trump supporters.

"If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling," Stephens wrote in August 2015.

Stephens explained that he regrets "almost nothing of what I said about the man and his close minions." But, he continued, "the broad swipe at his voters caricatured them and blinkered me."

"It also probably did more to help than hinder Trump’s candidacy," Stephens wrote. "Telling voters they are moral ignoramuses is a bad way of getting them to change their minds."

MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Amazingly, Stephens then pinpointed one of the central reasons Trump won the 2016 presidential election and why so many Americans still support him.

According to Stephens, Trump's supporters viewed him as the antithesis to elitism, which has for years been forcing its agenda onto average Americans.

"I could have thought a little harder about the fact that, in my dripping condescension toward his supporters, I was also confirming their suspicions about people like me — people who talked a good game about the virtues of empathy but practice it only selectively; people unscathed by the country’s problems yet unembarrassed to propound solutions," Stephens admitted.

"I also could have given Trump voters more credit for nuance," he wrote. "For every in-your-face MAGA warrior there were plenty of ambivalent Trump supporters, doubtful of his ability and dismayed by his manner, who were willing to take their chances on him because he had the nerve to defy deeply flawed conventional pieties."

What was the reaction?

Critics of Trump slammed and mocked Stephens.

  • "To paraphrase Orwell, 'There are some columns so absurd only intellectuals can write them,' and this column is Exhibit A," Tom Nichols said.
  • "Is there going to be a column where the @nytopinion editors admit they were wrong about hiring Bret Stephens?" New York University professor Eric Klinenberg reacted.
  • "For aspiring writers, especially POC, who feel insecure or doubt their abilities & talents, just remember Bret Stephens has a Pulitzer & is paid an obscene amount of money to be a NYT columnist. I've been in this game a long time. Trust me. The bar is low. Hop on over & join us," liberal writer Wajahat Ali reacted.
  • "Jesus God, Bret Stephens has a real case as the dumbest man in public life. What an absolute masterpiece of idiocy," another person reacted.
  • "What's that, Lassie? Bret Stephens is an a**hole and is trapped at the bottom of a well? Good dog, Lassie. Go lie down in the shade," author Benjamin Dreyer reacted.
  • "Bret Stephens is just Jordan Peterson, except somehow even dumber," another person reacted.

However, not all reaction was negative.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for example, expressed gratitude for Stephens' admission.

"I say this unironically: This is an excellent—and much needed—column by Bret Stephens in the NYT," Cruz wrote on Twitter.

The New York Times has published several redesigns of the American flag: 'These are all completely terrible'



The American flag is an iconic and globally recognizable symbol of the United States, but anyone fond of the flag's current look may not be thrilled with the new concepts recently published by the New York Times.

"The American flag is a potent piece of national iconography, but its design shifted frequently until the early 1900s. What if it were redesigned today? We asked artists and graphic designers to try. The flags they came up with reflect a mix of approaches. Some are functional designs, others artistic renderings; some represent America as it could be, others how the artist sees the country now," the Times wrote in the piece which is labeled as opinion.

A design by Andrew Kuo features various colors, and a legend reveals the meanings behind each of them: Yellow for "Repairing systemic racism," green for "Taking care of our planet," blue for "Untapped potential" red for "Our past," and white for "Our future." The flag includes a section with alternating red and white stripes, which stand for "Fear," "Forgiveness," "Anger," "Joy," and "Pride."

"I've designed a flag that acknowledges the emotions that informed where our country has been and the spirit of where it may go, with joy and forgiveness as possibilities. We can't ignore how we got here, but maybe we can move toward a different, even better place," Kuo explains.

This is what I believe 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/AUd0mPwmTe

— Andrew Kuo (@earlboykins) 1632860872.0

A flag design by Na Kim features a dull and colorless concept: "The colors of our flag are intended to stand for unity, valor and justice. The gray, monochrome flag represents America surrendering to its fall from power and loss of the ideals it once stood for. The American dream is being washed away."

A new flag design by Na Kim: "The colors of our flag are intended to stand for unity, valor and justice. The gray,… https://t.co/fSQc6iTZ88

— Wolfgang Bein (@wwbein) 1632854124.0

Unsurprisingly, some people were not thrilled by the flag redesigns.

"These are all completely terrible," tweeted The American Independent senior writer Oliver Willis.

"This link should send you to a Ric Astley video -- instead, you get something much worse," conservative radio host Jason Rantz tweeted.

"Still trying to noodle out WTF the NYT was thinking here?" tweeted Charlie Sykes, founder and editor-at-large of The Bulwark.

"This link should be banished from the internet and the NY Times should have to take a timeout," tweeted Rory Cooper, a partner at Purple Strategies and a GU Politics Fellow.

"Congratulations to the @nytimes for writing the stupidest op-ed (if writing is the right word for this) of all time. (And this is quite a feat considering the vast landscape of stupidity coming from the @nytopinion page.) Bravo! You've outdone yourselves," Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Rebecca Mansour tweeted.

"This is terrible. All of it," another individual tweeted.

This is terrible. All of it. https://t.co/I9tAE88Jm4

— Paul Rieckhoff (@PaulRieckhoff) 1632877177.0

Liberal journalist: There is 'no good reason' only citizens can vote



A guest columnist for the New York Times argued this week that "there is no good reason you should have to be a citizen to vote."

According to the Times, the essay is "part of a series exploring bold ideas to revitalize and renew the American experiment."

Atossa Araxia Abrahamian, a New York-based progressive journalist and former senior editor of the Nation, claimed in an opinion piece Wednesday that "it's time for Democrats to radically expand the electorate."

How? First by granting permanent legal residents the right to vote. Why? Because, according to Abrahamian, they contribute as much to the country as any natural-born citizen.

"Nearly 15 million people living legally in the United States, most of whom contribute as much as any natural-born American to this country's civic, cultural and economic life, don't have a say in matters of politics and policy because we — resident foreign nationals, or 'aliens' as we are sometimes called — cannot vote," Abrahamian wrote.

According to her, the non-citizens who ought to be able to vote include "people with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers."

For ⁦@nytopinion⁩ I wrote about how the U.S should let aliens (the friendly human kind) vote 👽🇺🇸 https://t.co/HesOgmEv4k

— Atossa Araxia Abrahamian (@atossaaraxia) 1627523637.0

A permanent legal resident herself, Abrahamian argued that "expanding the franchise in this way would give American democracy new life, restore immigrants' trust in government and send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world."

She casts it as an inspiring message of unity. But for those concerned with diluting the franchise, it is more than fair to wonder whether granting the right to vote to permanent legal residents is only the beginning. It's not hard to imagine how, after the franchise is expanded to include permanent residents, it could easily be expanded again and again.

Notwithstanding, the U.S. has adopted laws permitting only citizens to vote for a reason. Becoming a citizen "should mean something," argued the New York Post Editorial Board in 2020:

An immigrant's affirmative decision to become a citizen is a vital acceptance of duties as well as privileges.

"I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty," reads the oath of allegiance for the newly naturalized. And "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," including military service and other "work of national importance" as required by law.

The solemn oath is not one that someone should take lightly. It aims to isolate one's allegiance to the United States alone, over and above all foreign allegiances, in most cases.

That is a notion that Abrahamian clearly rejects. The journalist — who reportedly holds Swiss, Canadian, and Iranian citizenship — is also the author of a 2015 book titled, "The Cosmopolites: The Coming Global Citizen."

According to a summary posted online, in the book, Abrahamianan interviews scores of so-called "cosmopolites," or "citizens of the world," to promote what she sees as an "increasingly fluid, borderless world."

NY Times finds support for Black Lives Matter plummeted since last summer, makes zero references to months of riots



The one-year anniversary of the death of George Floyd occurs next week on May 25. Following the deaths of Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery last year, support for Black Lives Matter skyrocketed.

However, just as fast as the support for Black Lives Matter soared, the backing of the movement quickly plummeted, according to analysis from the New York Times.

The so-called "newspaper of record" investigated the sudden and startling decline in support for Black Lives Matter, but did not make any mention of the riots that burned American cities for months, which often spawned from BLM protests.

From NYT: 'Support for Black Lives Matter Surged Last Year. Did It Last?' The answer is no. 'The data...contradict… https://t.co/6nyM5qbBme

— Byron York (@ByronYork) 1621711357.0

"Notably, support for the movement peaked in the immediate aftermath of George Floyd's death and then swiftly declined," the New York Times article read. The decline was so significant that "Republicans and white people have actually become less supportive of Black Lives Matter than they were before the death of George Floyd — a trend that seems unlikely to reverse anytime soon."

The article, which was written by Jennifer Chudy and Hakeem Jefferson, noted that Republicans had supported the Black Lives Matter movement shortly after Floyd's death, which shocked the authors because they label the Republican Party as "often characterized by its racial insensitivity and antagonism toward racial minorities."

White support for Black Lives Matter surged last spring but then fell to lower than it had been pre-Floyd. Analys… https://t.co/PAsEnb8rql

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) 1621687572.0

"The reason for the drop seems to be shifting attitudes among Republicans and white Americans, two large and often overlapping groups," the NYT said.

"Some have wondered whether support for B.L.M., especially among white people, is genuine or merely virtue-signaling," the authors suggested.

Nowhere in the New York Times article is the word "riot" found. Since Floyd's death, there were regular riots across 140 U.S. cities. The looting and property damage from the riots, many of which were carried out by BLM supporters, are estimated to be the "most expensive in insurance history." The riots result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion of paid insurance claims, according to data released in September.

“After Mr. Floyd’s death, Republicans reported much stronger support for Black Lives Matter than they had earlier i… https://t.co/RkugP99gn1

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) 1621690999.0

Online commenters were quick to point out reasons why support for Black Lives Matter abruptly and massively tarnished. Twitter users noted that support crashed because of fiery riots often linked to the movement, and several scandals involving the Black Lives Matter organization, including the group being run by "trained Marxists," one of which went on a "real estate buying binge." Despite raising a reported $90 million in 2020, Black Lives Matter chapters allege the organization doesn't support them financially. One BLM chapter was called a "fraud" by Breonna Taylor's mother.

"Relatable" podcast host Allie Beth Stuckey stated, "Riots, murder and anarchy will do that."

Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy wrote, "The drop in support for BLM probably has a lot to do with the true idea that black lives matter being juxtaposed with the violence & rioting that accompanied many BLM protests nationwide last year as well as the BLM national org being exposed as run by shameless Marxist grifters."

Political commenter Stephen L. Miller quipped, "Hey it turns out people hate billions of dollars in riot damages to their businesses while our media ignores and waives it away."

Author Jim Hanson said, "Weird Maybe that 2020 long #insurrection by #BLM w/ Dozens of deaths Thousands of injuries & $2B+ in damage Had something to do with it."

Political writer A.G. Hamilton explained, "That's because the support was for the concept, which then got confused with the Marxist and bigoted organization of the same name and the violence that followed."

Townhall senior writer Julio Rosas pointed out, "The word 'riot' does not appear once in the article but they did manage to include 'Latinx.' Another attempt to memory hole the massive riots from last year."

Author and mathematician James Lindsay remarked, "This graph, frankly, shows that Democrats are willfully blind to what's going on in the county, probably mostly because they don't want to be accused of having 'conservative' views, which is a mode straight out of Maoism."

Twitter user Comfortably Smug snarked, "Perhaps the cities being on fire had something to do with this."

The Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released a poll last September that also found that support for Black Lives Matter plunged over last summer.

A Pew Research Center survey published in September found that support for public support for the Black Lives Matter movement receded.