New Source Backs Up Explosive Claim About New York Times and Tim Scott’s Op-Ed – Opinion

Writer and ex-writer, New York TimesBari Weiss shared with Senator Tim Scott the news that Chuck Schumer wanted his opinion piece to be approved by an editor of the newspaper.

The TimesThe claim was immediately refuted in a statement to New York PostThey stated in clear terms that they would not ask for outside approval before publishing an opinion piece. Their statement was also shared on Twitter.

Here is the exchange between Weiss and Scott, where the writer explains to the Senator what happened when the op-ed was submitted, though we never find out why the op-ed didn’t run.

Weiss: Here’s what happened. It was my turn to be there. New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill, and why it fell apart. 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?’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: 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.’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss:The younger colleague refused. Because he said — because that colleague said — it wasn’t an ethical thing to do.

Scott: Wow.

However, a new source has come forward – albeit unnamed – and presented National Review with messages that confirm Weiss’ account.

THe New York Times has repeatedly denied the explosive account from former Times journalist Bari Weiss that a senior opinion-page editor instructed a colleague to “check with” Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) before running an op-ed from Senator Tim Scott (R., S.C.). But a second source with direct knowledge of the matter has backed up Weiss’s story to National Review. A message from a senior editor at that time, in which he insists on the publication of the source was also quoted. Times check with Schumer — even providing the email address of Schumer press representative Justin Goodman.

The second source also revealed that Scott’s op-ed, which focused on the Republican senator’s police-reform package, was initially solicited by the Times — as opposed to having been pitched to the newspaper — a detail that was not clear from the original account.

The New York TimesLiberal outlets are not new. That it is actively suppressing a Republican Senator’s op-ed is likewise nothing new, though I am assuming that the editors didn’t want another riot from the news department on their hands after the Tom Cotton incident. But was is surprising, though perhaps it shouldn’t be, is just how far the upper echelons of the paper will go to 1) give deference to the Democrats and 2) lie about it.

This could be related to an office communication software like Slack, which allows employees to communicate via text messages using an app. Some of these systems keep logs of messages for a while, so it wouldn’t be very difficult for the Times to find the logs of that time period and scour them, release them, and prove it didn’t happen that way.

Of course, we shouldn’t expect them to. This would be absurd.

Institutions like the FBI or the The have created a gap between trust and credibility in the country. New York Times. You point it out, and they act clearly in partisan ways. Then the left says it’s all the fault of conservative outlets that spread “misinformation” (meaning “information we don’t like”), though they fail to realize that they are the cause for the rise of conservative media. People lose faith in their ability to provide new media outlets due to their own actions.

The Times should be ashamed of their consistently awful actions in the world of journalism, but they don’t have any sense of shame left.

About Post Author

Follow Us