Many Internet users are threatening to unsubscribe from the American daily, strongly criticized for its coverage of the killings in El Paso and Dayton.
The United States is in mourning. At least 31 people have been killed in two separate massacres (the 250th and 251st of the year in the country), in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
As the gun control debate rages on – as with every killings – the New York Times is currently at the center of an uproar. On its first One, published this Tuesday morning, the American daily chose to headline on Donald Trump’s speech in reaction to the massacres. “Trump calls for unity against racism” [“Trump urges unity vs racism”], thus announce the New York Times.
“They haven’t learned anything”
Since then, the daily has been accused of appeasing the American president. Because if Donald Trump has condemned “racism, sectarianism, and white supremacism” during his speech, calling these two killings “crimes against humanity” [sans toutefois oublier de blâmer également les jeux vidéo], the fact remains that the American president is himself, notes the American Huffington Post, responsible for a “long personal history of hatred and racist rhetoric.”
[Offre limitée] Back to school special. € 1 per month
READ ALSO >> El Paso and Dayton killings: on Fox News, video games wear the hat
Regularly comparing immigration to an “invasion”, the US president for example asked, on July 14, elected Democrats in Congress to “return home”. And this, while they are obviously American.
As for the alleged El Paso shooter, he had shared a manifesto online, in which he seemed to mimic Donald Trump’s language, comparing immigrants to “invaders”, and asking to “send them home. . ”
This One of New York Times So now seems to convince Internet users to unsubscribe from the daily, if we are to believe the ads that flourish on Twitter. “I rely on the journalism of New York Times. I respect him. But I unsubscribe and I call on others to do the same, writes – among other complaints – an employee of NBC and MNSBC. The decision to reward this racist with this One is too much. We have to fight this on all fronts. ”
READ ALSO >> In the United States, Blacks are at greater risk of being killed by the police
Joan Walsh, political reporter for CNN, bluntly claims to have canceled his subscription. “I know a lot of people will tell me I’m wrong. I will miss it. But I can’t continue to reward such terrible editorial judgments. [Ce titre] is almost as bad as their cover of Comey’s letter [une lettre envoyée au Congrès dans laquelle le directeur du FBI James Comey avait annoncé la réouverture de l’enquête sur les mails d’Hillary Clinton. Cette lettre est, pour de nombreux observateurs, jugée responsable de la défaite de la démocrate] right before the 2016 election. They didn’t learn anything. ”
A second One that erases the first
But here is that a few hours later, a new One of the New York Times made its appearance. “Defeat hatred but not guns” now replaces Trump’s call for “unity”. The daily did not indicate if this second edition is a direct consequence of the controversy, or if it is simply an editorial choice without any relation.
If the anger is great, some journalists have nevertheless defended the title. In particular the editor of the information site The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. “Le New York Times employs 1,600 journalists who do vital work around the world. This journal publishes millions and millions of words every year. Sometimes he makes mistakes. Moreover, President Trump would very much like you to unsubscribe, “he quipped, referring to the war between the American president and the media, and in particular the New York Times.
A questioning since 2016
It has been several years since the New York Times tries to fight against his own faults. After the surprise election of Donald Trump in 2016, the daily questioned its treatment of the campaign. In an editorial published on November 9, 2016, the mediator of the newspaper Jim Rutenberg spoke bitterly about what he considered at the time to be a journalistic failure, and a defeat of a general press which had not been able to correctly transcribe the rise of the Republican candidate .
“The news media largely missed what was going on around them. It is history repeating itself. Estimates were not only a bad guide on election night – they were the other way around. of what was really playing out, he lamented. […] This Tuesday night’s failure was much more than a failure in the ballot, it was also the failure to understand the boiling anger of much of the American electorate, who feels left out by a selective recovery and betrayed by trade deals that he sees as threats to his jobs. If the media fail to present a political scenario based on reality, then they have failed in fulfilling their most basic function. ”