The New York Times publisher issued a response to an academic demanding the paper atone for hiring a columnist who warned about “hubris” in climate science.
“We feel very fortunate to have a principled, independent-minded conservative writer like Bret Stephens join our team,” Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wrote in a letter Friday, referring to the paper’s decision to hire Brett Stephens, a former Wall Street Journal writer who made waves last month for criticizing climate change predictions. Some readers unsubscribed over the column.
Sulzberger Jr went on to state that the Times welcomes viewpoints from conservatives, liberals and everyone. Stephen’s work exists side-by-side with that of climate activist Bill McKibben, he wrote. McKibben wrote an editorial last year for the Times suggesting that those protesting the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline are contending with the kind of environmental racism he believes is rampant among white people.
“Americans on the right and left are talking past each other about how best to address climate change, and we are determined to put these different points of view into conversation with each other in hopes of advancing solutions,” he added. .......To Read More...
My Take - Those who read and bleed the New York Times are used to confirmation - not information! And when someone comes along stepping on their parade - they're outraged. Nothing makes a person madder than being told everything they believe is utter nonsense - and worse yet - proves it. Nothing will trigger a violent or irrational reaction faster. Whether it's Black Lives Matter, the Occupy Wall Street loons, or the Leftists in Congress - they will react with irrationality. But that's the left - irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
But the real question that should be asked is this: Why is the New York Times all of a sudden come to the conclusion they "respect conservative viewpoints" and "feel very fortunate to have a principled, independent-minded conservative writer like Bret Stephens join our team.” It's simple. If the NYT doesn't become rational they're going out of business, but here's the real story. It's all baloney, if the worm turned they would turn as quickly as they could right back to being the leftist loons they've always been, including the days when they supported Stalin.
I don't read the NYT, I don't like the NYT, I don't respect the NYT and I don't care what changes they make at the NYT - as along as the same people run the NYT - with the exception of an article here and there - I will never read the NYT. Its my guess that's the view of the vast majority of conservatives. And when the Old Gray Hag finally goes out of business - that will be a day for rejoicing.