NYT Writer Slammed for Suggesting Libs Should Talk to Climate Change Deniers

Last updated on: May 2, 2017 at 7:35 am by Mark Meckler

NYT Writer Slammed for Suggesting Libs Should Talk to Climate Change Deniers 2017-05-02T07:35:40-06:00 Mark Meckler

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

NYTPiece

Bret Stephens won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, wrote for The Wall Street Journal where he was the deputy editorial page editor, and then moved to the New York Times. When they introduced him to their readers, they quoted their new columnist’s explanation of what true opinion journalism is. “What a columnist owes his readers isn’t a bid for their constant agreement. It’s independent judgment,” he wrote. “Opinion journalism is still journalism, not agitprop. The elision of that distinction and the rise of malevolent propaganda outfits such as Breitbart News is one of the most baleful trends of modern life. Serious columnists must resist it.”

And so, in his first piece, he resisted it. In what the Federalist described as a tepid first article, he suggested that “both sides of the climate-change debate might fare better if they were open to hearing out the opposition’s arguments. Perhaps then, he argues, they could better work toward some sort of solution.”

The readers of the New York Times, however, apparently weren’t down with the “independent judgment” thing. The newspaper closed the comments, but not before over 1,500 people shared their thoughts — and they weren’t happy. In the top reader-selected comments, Stephens was called “baffling,” accused of making false equivalencies, promulgating ignorance, logically absurd, and manipulated by the GOP. Here’s one indicative of the hundreds:

This is the new columnist? Meh. The first foray is weak tea. We scientists are reporting alarming observations about a changing planet. But we’re vilified by one political party, and not the other. Perhaps an essay on why one political party in one country in the world is hysterically opposed to peer-reviewed science would be in order.

I honestly don’t care of readers of the New York Times like or dislike this new columnist. But it’s becoming abundantly clear — the left is sick and tired of anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with them. And that is really not good for America.

Photo Credit: Christopher Michel on Flickr

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 2, 2017

‘First Hundred Days’ Is A Gimmick: I Talked To Real People Who Make America Great Already

Next Post

May 3, 2017 Bill Nye, Chromosome Denier, Seems to Have Edited his 1996 Episode on Gender

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Pharisee" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Holy one Separated one Teacher Healer