The New York Times published an article today about the history of the Tea Party movement, but after a whole lot of backlash, the Times felt compelled to add some material to the piece:
We have updated this story assessing the policy failures of the Tea Party movement 10 years after its rise to include context about attacks on President Barack Obama and racist displays at some Tea Party rallies. https://t.co/r4k0qZCQlH
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) August 28, 2019
The update was to make the movement sound more racist, just coincidentally after a bunch of criticism from the Left.
Repeatedly letting itself get bullied into changing its coverage for the left is not a good look for the NYT. https://t.co/nIHWZEfWUO
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) August 28, 2019
It sure looks as if the Times has a number of unofficial after-the-fact editors on its staff:
Twitter = the refs. https://t.co/XTUssWw4kZ
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) August 28, 2019
One small saving grace, the characterization of the Tea Party as racist (due to the popular demand of Twitter ombudsmen) is prefaced with the qualifier: "as Mr. Obama’s allies saw the movement…" Not a statement of fact but opinion among one faction. https://t.co/PLj7RyHxx9
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) August 28, 2019
lmaaaooooooo NYT is edited by twitter what a joke https://t.co/J1BzM1OiL0
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) August 28, 2019
Here’s a humble suggestion for the NYT:
Maybe NY Times should just update its masthead and officially add "Twitter" as an editor
— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) August 28, 2019
That’s a great idea!
"If you have any other edits you'd like to suggest, let us know via tweetstorm."
— InExemplum (@inexemplum) August 28, 2019
Oh no, we got rationed by the left again so we gotta change this to make them happy.
— bbnanny (@NanbumHall) August 28, 2019
.@nytimes has let the entire world know it is no longer a world wide Journalistic outlet, it has morphed into The Socialist beacon of Pravda propaganda for @TheDemocrats Party. Sadly their collective includes @ABC @NBC @CBSnews @washingtonpost
— RickyRay ? (@RickyRayinGA) August 28, 2019
All in the name of “journalism.”
This is some fine historical revisionism.
The Tea Party, to the degree it was about anything, was about a populist uprising against the entrenched GOP leadership and have very little to do with Obama….A thread. https://t.co/o1HVZv6WLR
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) August 28, 2019
The origins of the Tea Party predate the CNBC rant. The seeds were in something called Pork Busters. It was an Instapundit project started in reaction to the spending of….George W. Bush. It got underway during the Bush admin.
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) August 28, 2019
Did the Tea Party take on Obama or the GOP establishment? Ask Boehner and McConnell. Prettttty sure they recall being the target of Tea Party.
Ask Cornyn about how people flipped out on him when he was heading the NRSC and said he needed Specter and Crist in the Senate.
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) August 28, 2019
Was it racial animus that led to Senate primaries by Toomey, Rubio, Cruz, Johnson, and Paul in 2010/12?
Even the loser like O'Donnell and Angle were reactions to the GOP establishment, not Obama.
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) August 28, 2019
Does the Times not heed advice from it’s own people?
This was two days ago. “Never make any decisions based on worries about ‘perception.” pic.twitter.com/QAyXjMVE8Y
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) August 28, 2019
But for some on the Left, the Times still didn’t go far enough, as evidenced by ThinkProgress columnist Ian Millhiser:
LOLZ! This piece still claims that the Tea Party was a "mass uprising based on notions of small-government libertarianism." https://t.co/ICP27hsvqM
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) August 28, 2019
The Times will never be able to acquiesce enough for some.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member