One Voice

March 14, 2013

A speech in The New York Times newsroom after the announcement of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize winners. Author: Nycmstar. April 20, 2009.

One of the inerrant truths of our time is that if a bad idea exists, the New York Times is certain to endorse it without reservation. Conversely, if a good idea is percolating in the public consciousness, the editors at the Old Gray Lady will inveigh against it to their newspaper’s last barrel of ink. Nothing illustrates this newspaper’s consistently wrongheaded approach to almost everything more than its public position on immigration enforcement, mass immigration, and the multigenerational transformation of this country through legislative as well as extraconstitutional means

Whether it’s opposing statewide efforts to rectify a problem caused in large measure by the federal government, or supporting yet another sweeping amnesty that will allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to further burden American society-to say nothing of the millions of legal immigrants that would be naturalized in such a compromise-you can rest assured that the Times will stand behind any “solution” to the immigration crisis that adversely impacts Americans, rarely allowing a dissenting perspective to be broached within its op-ed pages. However, its stance on immigration-related matters has gotten progressively worse with each passing year, especially under the reign of Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, heir to a journalistic dynasty which he has assiduously driven into the ground.

That’s why the backgrounder written by Jerry Kammer, of the Center for Immigration Studies, is such a welcome relief. Sulzberger’s Voice explores the reasons, both psychological and political, behind the NYT’s hidebound opposition to reasonable immigration policy and intolerance of anyone who critiques their open borers dogmatism. It’s well worth reading for anyone who wants to understand why the “paper of record” continually stands behind ideas that the overwhelming majority of American citizens categorically reject. and what this philosophical chasm portends for the current immigration debate.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *