The New York Times Exposes Media Hypocrisy as It Echoes Tom Cotton in Call to End Trucker Protest – Opinion

Is it possible for the New York Times to forget that such language can be dangerous for their staff??

Canadian truckers have demonstrated the fluid nature and flexibility of American politics through their protest. The abrupt shift in positions regarding certain activities has been evident on both sides. My support for resistance to government overreach is strained when major roads are blocked and emergency services suffer.

The real fun in all of this can be found in the media. They are not afraid to look at it and note the hypocrisy on the left, but seem incapable of finding any mirrors. Friday In my Townhall media sectionWhile I provided many examples of media misconduct regarding the protest, they continue to rail against Fox News’s sudden approval of protestors. However, those same journalists cannot see their 180-degree shift in position.

Where is the support blindly given by citizens to express their disgust for the government’s policies? What is AOC’s glowing support for protests? How can journalists denounce the? PotentialAfter waving pom poms in front auto parts shops engulfed by flames, there was violence in Ottawa. New York Times now offers its take on this matter and should make the paper laugh.

This report outlines the scope of the protest as well as the effects on our business. The Times has a detailed rundown. The paper’s sales pitch for disruption is exposed. This summation may sound familiar to an earlier position in the same periodical.

As protests stretch on in Canada and truckers block supply chains with the U.S., some Canadians are asking: Why hasn’t Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered the authorities to quash the demonstrations? https://t.co/OZ72MKY8wE

— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 10, 2022

The curiosity is that this is essentially the exact same thing that was printed in the exact same newspaper in June of 2020, and at that time, this type of suggestion created a firestorm within the Times’ offices. Senator Tom Cotton spoke out about the many protests he witnessed across the country. He was also referring to the violent attacks on numerous federal buildings and cities. It was incredible to see the reaction to his opinion piece.

Times employees were infuriatedThe paper’s column inches went to a conservative who wanted the right to affect the rights and liberties of the citizens. It was then that things became ridiculously absurd, and even hysterical. Many at the newspaper suggested that printing the column represented a direct threat. 

Warning: tweet contains coarse language.

We just want to remind everyone that this position was less than two years old, and the NY Times is suggesting today that Canada should send authorities to suppress peaceful truckers protests.
The staff are safe and sound today. https://t.co/Sp8oRXo9AI

— Brad Slager – Aluminum Medalist 12oz Curling Team (@MartiniShark) February 12, 2022

After the fact, there were many attempts made by the paper to suggest that the article had been rewritten. They had been tricked.Cotton. Kara Swisher, an opinion writer, stated that the article was. “jaw-droppingly titled “Send In the Troops,” It sounds as though everyone in the paper was shocked by this post-publication.  The claim was that the understaffed editorial division was rushed to print his piece; the time it would take to read the column was apparently too slim. There was plenty of time for follow-up editorials, and explanation pieces. This understaffing in the editorial department seems to be a little selective. 

The Times is perfectly comfortable stating that authorities must be dispatched to disperse an organised protest. However, no one seems to be in danger. It isn’t considered a launch to promote a government intrusion. “a metaphorical tear-gas canister into a tense national crisis,” as Cotton’s identical suggestion had been described two summers back. It is not the same. The only thing we do not know is how.

Another op ed for this week, from the paper’s editorial board, they again took the stance that governmental involvement was justified. 

The government has a duty to stop violence by protesters. However, the government must also be open to being disrupted by anyone who wants to speak. The challenge for public officials…is to maintain a balance between public health and safety and a functioning society, with the right to free expression.

The Times should have added another phrase to this editorial – We are firmly convinced that this is the case on these topics. Today.